Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Fishing Industry (Courses)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in regard to the college for the fishing industry proposed in Aberdeen; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): None, but my right hon. Friend is now studying Aberdeen Education Authority's plans for the centre for fishing courses.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: While I express my sympathy over the collapse of the present proposals for the college in Aberdeen, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that we are always told that there is plenty of provision available in Aberdeen for radar observers' courses, yet my constituents usually have to wait an average of three months or travel elsewhere in Scotland? Will my hon. Friend hasten to provide some of the available equipment in Fraserburgh to meet the needs of the largest industry in the area?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in the Buchan Technical College and the fishing industry, but if he is referring to the fishing education centre at Aberdeen I have already said that proposals are now with my Department. On the availability on places in Aberdeen for the radar observers' courses, I shall reply to my hon. Friend shortly.

Local Government Electoral Boundaries

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be able to provide Members of Parliament with information about the electoral boundaries within the future West Regional Council and North Ayrshire District Council, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the up-to-date revised proposals in respect of the number of elected representatives on the proposed new South-East Regional Council and the Dunfermline District Council, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Copies of the documents which were recently issued have been placed in the Library. In relation to electoral boundaries I must emphasise that these provide simply a starting point for local consultations prior to the preparation of substantive proposals: they are not the considered views of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Lambie: Was it just a coincidence that the information was supplied to the Library after the Questions were submitted? Is it not about time that we in Parliament, who will take the final decision on the reform of local government in Scotland, had a say in the proposal put forward in the White Paper on that reform?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is no question of coincidence. The preparations have been going on for a long time, as have consultations with the local authorities involved. With the deepest respect to the hon. Gentleman, while of course Parliament has the right to consider these matters, many local people are involved.

Mr. Hunter: Does the Minister agree that there is some confusion, even among councillors, about draft proposals of this kind and that councillors as well as Members of Parliament should be completely informed about any draft proposals coming forward?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These are not draft proposals in the technical sense but are purely a starting point for discussion. Copies of them and a very full covering letter have gone to the clerks of every city, county and district council in Scotland. If there is any doubt, I suggest that councillors who may be confused get in touch with their clerk and they will obtain more details.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals for Glasgow in particular contain wide variations in the average numbers in the various wards? Will he give an assurance that he will be open to representations from the local authorities and others on the proposals?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What has been produced at this stage is simply a starting point for discussions. We now hope to enter into consultations with the local authorities, and others may make their representations. The matter will then go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will be advised by an independent advisory committee, to be set up shortly, before the stage is reached when draft proposals are published. After they are published it will be possible for formal representations to be made in the normal way. We are now at the very earliest stage on local government electoral boundaries.

Mr. David Steel: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the document in the Library is headed "Draft proposals"? Is it not a gross discourtesy to hon. Members that we have individually to obtain photo-copies of proposals affecting our constituents when they should have been sent to us as a matter of courtesy at the same time as they were sent to local authorities?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: A very large number of different areas are involved—1,550—and in many cases the new local boundaries do not necessarily coincide with parliamentary constituencies. No discourtesy is intended to any hon. Member. If there is a better way in which the matter can be dealt with, I am prepared to consider it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the Minister realise that this is a matter of very great importance to every hon. Member, including himself, and that hon. Members as much as anyone else must

be allowed to see the proposals at this early stage? I hope there is no disagreement about that. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman seek to improve the means whereby the papers are made available to hon. Members? My second point is directed more to the Secretary of State. We have had two major statements and numerous alterations as a result of prior discussions. Unlike our English colleagues, who had two days' debate on the Floor of the House before the English Bill was introduced, we have had no debate. May we have an assurance that we shall have at least one day's debate on the Floor of the House, if not two days, to discuss the proposals before we have legislation next year?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I as much as any one else want to ensure that what is available is readily available also to hon. Members. That is why we made these proposals available in the Library. I may say that in the week since they were made available only one hon. Member has been in touch with me regarding a a certain difficulty. I hope that in his case I was able to deal with it. The hon. Gentleman asked about a debate. He must remember that the Opposition were offered a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee last year and that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate at Question time.

Dr. Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Stobhill Hospital

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is proposing to take to bring the wards and facilities at Stobhill Hospital up to the modern standards of the new wards, &c, of Falkirk Royal Infirmary.

Mr. Monro: The modernisation programme at the hospital is continuing and a major ward improvement scheme will start within the next two years.

Mr. Baxter: In appreciating and thanking the hon. Gentleman for that answer, as one who has had practical experience of being a patient in this hospital I want to pay the highest


possible tribute to the staff there. I think that the wards leave very much to be desired, however, and I hope that these efforts will be put in hand more or less immediately.

Mr. Monro: I share the praise which the hon. Gentleman has for the staff of this fine hospital. Over the next five or six phases of the hospital building programme we hope to spend about £1 million on ward improvements there.

Mr. Baxter: I am obliged.

Mr. Ewing: While accepting that the new wards of Falkirk Royal Infirmary are of the high standard described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), may I ask whether there is not room for considerable improvement, particularly in the maternity facilities?

Mr. Monro: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the ward mentioned by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire is a new one and we appreciate that it is exceptional. I will look at the other point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Local Authority Schools (Fee Paying)

Mr. Buchan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what schemes submitted to him involving fee paying in local authority schools he has approved this year.

Mr. Monro: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member on 2nd February, Edinburgh Corporation's modification of its scheme of educational provision is under consideration. No scheme has been approved in 1972.—[Vol. 830, c. 113.]

Mr. Buchan: I am glad to hear that no scheme has been approved and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep it that way. There are two applications, one for the restoration of fee-paying selectivity and the other to abolish selectivity. If, after all the promises in the Tory manifesto about the freedom of local authorities, the Government allow one scheme to be accepted and the other to be turned down, will not this be seen by the people of Scotland as a pledge by the Government to create reaction in education?

Mr. Monro: I cannot accept anything of that. Both schemes are under consideration and until my right hon. Friend has come to a decision I propose to say no more about them.

Mr. Brewis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that none of these excellent schools should be abolished until schools of equal excellence are provided in the local non-fee-paying sector?

Mr. Monro: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and it will be borne in mind in the careful consideration which my right hon. Friend and I are giving to the matter.

Mr. Ross: Last year the Secretary of State put through an Act of Parliament to give full discretion in these two local authorities. May I ask him, therefore, not to be pressurised and bullied into abuse of his legislative powers just because he objects to a political principle?

Mr. Monro: No right hon. or hon. Member from Scotland is less likely to be bullied or pressurised than my right hon. Friend.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of local authority fee-paying schools in Scotland in the light of recent representations.

Mr. Monro: There are at present no local authority fee-paying schools in Scotland, but my right hon. Friend has at present under consideration one proposal from an education authority to restore fee paying.

Mr. MacArthur: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many former fee-paying schools in Scotland? Will he protect the variety and excellence which we need in Scottish education and preserve choice for the children of parents who are not well off? Will he also assure the House that he will postpone any final decision about the future of these schools until the structure of local government in Scotland is reformed?

Mr. Monro: As I said earlier this afternoon, I must not give a view on proposals which are currently before us. My right hon. Friend is considering them and will make an announcement as soon


as possible in the interests of children and their parents.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that, on the basis of his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), there is no demand for fee-paying schools in Scotland, and will he take the lead which we gave when we were in power and depart from fee-paying schools as is done in England and Wales?

Mr. Monro: What the present Government have given, which the Labour Government would not give, is freedom of choice. These matters are under careful consideration and my right hon. Friend will make an announcement in due course.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further initiatives he intends taking with regard to industry and the local authorities in Scotland after the conference at Aviemore on North Sea oil.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): As agreed at his meeting on 14th February, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development has established a standing conference of local authorities, oil companies and others to keep under review all aspects of the North Sea oil developments. The secretariat of the conference is already dealing with queries.

Mr. Douglas: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the remonstrance given to British industry by Mr. Tapper, the chief exploration engineer of Shell, who says that many British industrialists are likely to miss the boat in terms of getting the maximum benefit for British industry from the North Sea strike? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend doing about that?

Mr. Campbell: I have seen the reports in the Press today of what was stated by a spokesman of Shell. I and the bodies concerned in Scotland, such as the Scottish Council, are doing all we can to draw the attention of Scottish trade and industry to all the opportunities for goods and services that arise.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does not my right hon. Friend agree, in view of the fact

that the first instalment of the oil to come ashore came through Japanese pipes, that there is need for some means of manufacturing pipes for later oil to come ashore and to ensure that they are manufactured in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I understand that the type of pipe required, which is for under-sea operation, can only be manufactured and made available in time in Japan, but I am glad to note that the land pipe contract has gone to the British Steel Corporation and that the manufacture is to be undertaken in Scotland.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an initiative which is at the Government's hand to take and which would be widely welcomed might be the location in Scotland of the petroleum division of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Campbell: I note that suggestion.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman heard the exchanges yesterday with the Prime Minister on this matter. What attitude is the right hon. Gentleman adopting towards the reassessment of refining capacity in Scotland, particularly in the light of the possibility of there being oil to the north and west of our country as well as in the North Sea?

Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, this is a continuously changing and developing situation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that it is a very important question. It is indeed important and also complicated and it is being looked into by the Government with all the others concerned.

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet given further consideration to the proposal for a development authority for Scotland, made at the conference, Oil and Scotland's Future, organised by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is one of a number of such proposals which are being considered by the Government.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into careful account the


widespread agreement throughout Scotland that some way has to be found whereby a proportion of the money derived from oil in Scottish waters is reinvested in Scottish industry?

Mr. Campbell: There is general agreement that this newly found wealth should be used for the benefit of Scotland, not that it is necessary to relate oil revenues directly to work in Scotland, especially as the oil is not expected to flow for at least two years. But suggestions which have been put forward and discussed with the Government are conflicting in themselves in that there are different ideas of the nature and rôle of any new body.

House Improvement Grants (Lanarkshire)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been received to date for house improvement grants in the Lanarkshire County Council area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): Up to the end of 1971 grants had been approved covering about 3,000 houses. I am asking the county council to write to the hon. Gentleman about numbers of applications.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my information is that most of these applications are coming from owner-occupiers? Is he satisfied that enough landlords are endeavouring to do what they should be doing—bringing houses up to tolerable standards? If they are not, will he ensure that plenty of publicity is given to it?

Mr. Younger: I agree about the importance of publicity. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Scottish Office mounted its biggest ever publicity campaign on this matter last year. The proportions of the figures I have given are about 1,200 private houses and 1,800 public sector houses, of which about 1,500 are owned by county councils and about 300 by the Scottish Special Housing Association. I agree that we should do all we can to encourage more private owners to improve their houses.

Mr. Brewis: Will my hon. Friend look into the case of a number of authorities in Central Scotland which refuse to give

housing improvement grants, and see whether he can make the grants mandatory?

Mr. Younger: I would be reluctant at this stage to make them mandatory, as a lot of local conditions have to be taken into account in assessing whether grants should be undertaken. I agree that it is a great pity that some local authorities are reluctant to make the grants but I think that this practice is gradually getting less and less.

Mr. Lawson: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea of the average amount of money spent on these houses?

Mr. Younger: Not without notice.

Power Stations

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the general state of the generating capacity of power stations now that the miners' strike is over; and what plans he has to convert existing coal-fired power stations to other forms of fuelling.

Mr. Younger: I understand from the boards that the generating capacity of Scottish power stations is now at its normal level but that some further additions to fuel stocks are desirable.
My right hon. Friend is considering an outstanding application from the South of Scotland Electricity Board to convert Portobello power station to oil firing, having regard to the problem of grit and dust emission from that station, the economics of its future operation and all the social factors involved.

Mr. Eadie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the policy of conversion from coal to oil is pursued jobs in the mining industry, engineering and other consumer industries will be at stake? Will he look at the article in today's Scotsman which states that our oil consumption is greater than the present finds? Will he bear in mind that Scotland cannot take the further unemployment which would result from conversion to oil?

Mr. Younger: I assure the hon. Gentleman that these and all the other factors will be carefully considered before a decision is taken. The history of the


reactions of the Government to requests for conversion shows that our attitude is perfectly fair and we do not take these decisions lightly.

Mr. Ross: Will the Minister give an assurance that the consideration of the Government is confined only to conversion at Portobello? Have the Government yet received the Vinter Report in respect of the proposed nuclear station at Stake Ness? If so, when are we likely to get a statement on policy?

Mr. Younger: I confirm that the only application my right hon. Friend has in front of him at the moment is the Portobello application. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that before a decision on Stake Ness is taken we must have before us a complete study of future fuelling policy. The study is taking longer than was expected but is being pressed forward as quickly as possible.

Prisons (Vocational Training)

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will expand the programme of vocational training for adult prisoners in Scotland so that more than the 36 adult prisoners presently receiving such training can participate.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: An expanded and more varied programme of training of all kinds will be provided as suitable facilities become available in the course of the development of the prison building programme.

Mr. Smith: Does not the Minister agree that it is a disgraceful comment on our community that only 36 out of all the adult prisoners in Scottish prisons are currently receiving vocational training? Is not one of the most important objectives of his Department to increase that number many times to bring it to a level acceptable to a civilised nation?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject but he must see it in perspective. Vocational training is not the only training that is done in prisons; there is also general training. The hon. Gentleman must remember that we run into considerable difficulty with vocational training in getting general acceptance by the trade unions of those who have been trained.

A78, Ardrossan-Stevenston

Sir F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will reconsider his decision to raise the speed limit on the A78 between Ardrossan and Stevenston.

Mr. Younger: I have considered very carefully the conditions on this road, but my view is that a 40 m.p.h. limit on the length of road in question will be more generally observed and thus more effective in contributing to safety.

Sir F. Maclean: Does not my hon. Friend realise that public opinion locally is dead against this speed increase? Why does he brush aside their objections simply to satisfy a lot of speed fiends from out with the area, probably from his own constituency? Does he not realise the risks involved in increasing the speed limit on a road which runs through a residential area and is constantly crossed by old people and school-children? How many more accidents is my hon. Friend waiting for before he will listen to what the local people say?

Mr. Younger: I hope my hon. Friend was not referring to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) or myself when he spoke of speed fiends. I well appreciate the feelings of the local people and, as my hon. Friend will know, one does have to bear in mind the statistics and the conditions under which the speed limit will operate. In the last three years there has been only one accident in which speed was a contributory factor, and that accident did not involve a pedestrian. I assure my hon. Friend that in the light of experience after a year I shall look at the results and reconsider the matter.

Unemployment (Additional Works)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as a means of alleviating unemployment, he will allocate additional and immediate financial resources to regional hospital boards for minor works programmes.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The current special works programme includes £5 million for additional Health Service works in Scotland, of which £3·8 million has been allocated to regional hospital boards.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between the requests made by the regional hospital boards and the allocation? Has an estimate been made of the number of building trade workers for whom those minor works will provide jobs?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot without notice give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer to the first part of his question. In general, the major part of the applications which have come in for work have been accepted and have become part of the special programme. It is almost impossible to make an estimate, certainly a precise one, of the number of people who will either retain jobs or get extra work.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that local authorities have been given sufficient time to discuss the contents and reply to letter reference B/LGR/3 dated 15th February on the reorganisation of local government; and if he will make a state ment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ewing: Does the Under-Secretary of State accept that there appears to be a misunderstanding about the dates by which local authorities have to reply to the circular? The copy in the Library bears a date towards the end of April whereas the date on the copy which has been sent to local authorities is 31st March. This may mean that some local authorities will be able to have only one meeting to discuss the circular while others are able to have two meetings. Would not an extension to the end of April be advisable?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman has an example of specific confusion about this, I shall be glad to look into it. It is quite clearly stated that in the West Region we hope to have representations by the end of April and in the other areas by the end of March. We are embarking on a very big and complicated operation. Unfortunately, although legislation is still some time ahead, the timetable is relatively short.

Cancer

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons

have died of lung cancer in Scotland in each of the last five years; and, on the basis of figures available from international sources, how these figures compare with other Western European countries.

Mr. Monro: Deaths in Scotland from cancer of the trachea, bronchus and lung in each of the years 1966 to 1970 numbered 3,022, 3,145, 3,197, 3,277 and 3,443, respectively.
The most recent international comparison made by the World Health Organisation in 1967 indicates that death rates in Scotland from this cause are higher than in any other country in Western Europe.

Mr. Dempsey: Have the medical authorities given any reasons for this distressing and unparalleled death rate in Scotland from cancer? Will the Under-secretary of State give the House an assurance that finance will be no obstacle in prosecuting the campaign against this killer disease? Will he say to what extent, if any, Scotland will benefit from the cancer research campaigns outside this country?

Mr. Monro: I cannot give any specific reason, but the figure is marginally higher than in England and Wales. We are doing all we can in the preventive field. Cash is not unlimited but is substantial. My Department's Health Education Unit was one of the first to use television, and at least £40,000 will be spent this year on television material. In reply to the second part of the question, the Director of the Scottish Health Education Unit has visited the United States and research done in other countries is constantly being studied.

Mr. MacArthur: Will my hon. Friend say whether a further study of these terrible figures is likely to show any geographical difference in the incidence of respiratory cancer?

Mr. Monro: I cannot say that this will be so. A great deal of research is going on, but whether it will show up specific differences between East and West Scotland I cannot say.

Mr. Carmichael: Will the Minister confirm that the amount of money spent on the campaign directed at the younger generation against smoking will be increased? The figures are so shocking


that extra money should be given by the Government for this purpose and the campaign directed at school children should be intensified.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The more publicity hon. Members give to these figures, the better the results we can expect. I assure the hon. Gentleman that at least the Scottish Office Ministers are all non-smokers and are likely to be long-lived.

Sir G. Nabarro: I applaud the excellent example set by the Scottish Ministers, but do not these appalling figures demonstrate graphically the in-ineffectualness of the Government's policy on smoking and health? Had the Government adopted the Tobacco (Health Hazards) Bill making it legislatively necessary to take stern action against smoking, these figures could have shown some abatement.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has done to publicise the terrible dangers but I think he will realise that, however much the dangers of smoking are publicised, if people wish to smoke there is very little we can do to stop them.

Annual Farm Price Review

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding this year's Agricultural Price Review.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Only from the Scottish Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a certain amount of grass roots resentment at the slashing cuts made in fertiliser subsidy? Does he feel that the review is sufficiently generous to farmers to enable farmworkers to obtain substantial increases in their wages?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that this review has been accepted by the office bearers of the Scottish N.F.U. as a basis on which the industry can make progress. I believe it has been generally welcomed.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about fertiliser subsidy, I believe that this factor has been more than compensated by what has been put on to end prices.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is the best review since 1948 in terms of over-recoupment of costs. Wages are a matter for the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what expansion of the dairying industry he expects as a result of the Price Review.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am confident that the increase in the milk guarantee, together with the increase for beef, will provide the industry with the necessary resources for expansion.

Mr. Brewis: Was the prevalence of mastitis taken into account in the Price Review? As my hon. Friend is busy eradicating brucellosis, should not something be done about mastitis, which, is causing such serious losses of production in Scottish dairy herds?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that the specific disease of mastitis was taken into account in the review but it is certainly a disease which causes a lot of trouble in the dairy industry. It is in the interests of individual herd-owners to eradicate the disease. If they do, it is to their financial benefit.

Scottish Assembly

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made to meet the Standing Commission of the Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I shall be with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he meets the commission on 27th March.

Mr. Sillars: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard as sensible and reasonable the charter of demands approved by the Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Campbell: The standing commission has only just been composed and we do not yet know what that commission will put forward. I have been kept closely informed and I understand that it is still considering its proposals for the meeting on 27th March.

Mr. Eadie: But how will the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister explain to the commission why the Secretary of State for Scotland has sat idly


by and watched the Scottish Gas Board destroyed while a Gas Corporation has taken its place? How will he justify the fact that this power and right is being taken from the Scottish people?

Mr. Campbell: I regard this not as taking away any right from the Scottish people but as an advance, matching the fact that gas is now coming from the North Sea and is being distributed and is not being manufactured in the way in which it has in the past. Therefore, this is a recognition of change and modernisation.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce legislation to create a Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Proposals on constitutional reform are intended during this Parliament and will precede any legislation on that subject.

Mr. Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that we have waited a long time for these proposals and, since the reform of local government envisages no change in the distribution of power from central to local government, surely there is no need to wait for those proposals to be put forward? The Scottish T.U.C. assembly made it clear that there was great agitation for a louder voice in Scotland, and if we go into the Common Market this will be all the more necessary.

Mr. Campbell: I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this topic, but I would ask him to read again the report of the constitutional committee presided over by my right hon. Friend. He will find in paragraph 322 a recommendation that constitutional developments should follow the action being taken on reform of local government. Reference to the Wheatley Commission's proposals was made in that document so that the committee knew roughly what was proposed in the reform of local government as between central and local government.

Mr. Galbraith: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to congratulate him on his great wisdom in taking one step at a time?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend, and indeed all hon. Members present judging from the way in which earlier questions

have been dealt with this afternoon, will know the enormous size of the task of my Department in carrying through the massive operation of local government reform.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that there are a great many of us who regard the notion of a Scottish Assembly as a load of rubbish? If there is any suggestion of any Scottish legislation on this matter in the course of this Parliament, we would much rather the Secretary of State got his priorities the right way round and concerned himself with employment and matters of that kind.

Mr. Campbell: I am well aware of the differing views on this matter. This is why the Government intend first to put forward proposals for discussion.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: May we get the right hon. Gentleman's answer quite clear? As I understand his answer—he may have missed out a line in his reply—he said that this proposal would follow the legislation on reform of local government. Since we understand that will take place in the next Session, and since the elections for new local government will be in May, 1974, I take it that this matter will be dealt with in the very short Session 1974–75—if the present Parliament lasts that long.

Mr. Campbell: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been ill, and I am glad to see him back, but I would offer the suggestion that he needs to have his ears looked at. My reply was characteristically short and to the point. I was asked about legislation, but we have stated that we shall produce these proposals in this Parliament, not in this Session.

Urban Renovation

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has now had from local authorities wishing to take advantage of the scheme whereby the Government have allocated £1 million for urban renovation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: A total of 15 applications for grant have been received from local authorities, of which one has already been approved. The total grant represented by these applications is £194,200.

Mr. Dalyell: Does all the money look like being taken up?

Mr. Younger: Since this scheme was first announced only on 7th February, and in view of the fact that we have already made progress, I am certain that local authorities will come forward and take up the full allocation of £1 million.

Mr. Douglas: Are the local authorities working on urban renewal in association with such bodies as the Scottish Civic Trust?

Mr. Younger: The Scottish Civic Trust has many links with local authorities, but this particular scheme involves small environmental improvement work with a particular bent towards improving the attractions for incoming industry. Although the Civic Trust might be consulted on a particular matter, I would not regard this scheme as a matter in which that body would necessarily be involved.

Hospital (West Fife)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his up-to-date plans for the provision of a new general hospital for Dunfermline and West Fife; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monro: A proposal by the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board for the provision of a new district general hospital for West Fife is being considered along with other schemes proposed by all regional hospital boards in connection with an extension of the major hospital building programmes. I expect to make an announcement this spring.

Mr. Hunter: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he recall his visit to Dunfermline Hospital last year when he was impressed by the efficiency of the medical and nursing staff under the difficult physical conditions under which they were operating? I hope that the proposal in his reply will be included in the programme for after 1971–72.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was impressed by the staff and I appreciate the conditions in which they are working. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to take from what I have said that there is a firm commitment—far from it. We have to consider all the proposals together.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this part of Scotland has probably been harder hit by pit closures and the economic revolution which has taken place in the last 10 or 20 years than has probably any other part of the country? Therefore, does he not regard it as imperative, in view of the present deplorable circumstances in the West Fife Hospital, that that hospital should be given a higher place on the priority list of hospital building?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about pit closures, but if he will wait for a matter of weeks we shall be able to announce the new programme and we shall be able to see whether West Fife is successful.

Police

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the establishment of the police force in Scotland; and what is its present strength.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: At 31st December last the total authorised regular establishment of the police forces in Scotland was 11,403 and the actual strength was 10,811.

Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the ever-pressing duties performed by the police to combat crime and to deal with the rising number of motor cars, and also bearing in mind the stress put on the police during the recent coal strike, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to review the strength of the police force and indeed to upgrade it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When we came to office the establishments of the police forces in Scotland were frozen. We shortly announced that we were to carry out a review and that review is now progressing. I am glad to say that in terms of establishment and manpower the police force in Scotland is at present at a record level.

Housing Debt Interest (Kirkcaldy)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of interest paid by Kirkcaldy Town Council on its outstanding housing debt for the financial year 1970–71.

Mr. Younger: The amount of interest paid on the housing revenue account was £1,237,000.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the same time, only about £226,000 of principal was repaid? In view of that, will he do a great service to all the people of Scotland by withdrawing the infamous Housing Bill and substituting a new one designed to remove this monstrous burden from the pockets of tenants of houses in Scotland? Is he aware that last year Scottish councils paid something like £87 million in interest? Will he consider my suggestion, therefore, and scrap the Bill?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's remarks do not accord with the facts as they have occurred. The situation described in my original answer is due to the present system of housing finance, unchanged by the Bill currently being considered. The hon. Gentleman will know that interest rates have gone up in recent years. About half the rise in the case of Kirkcaldy is due to increasing interest rates. The other half is due to extra house building. The new housing subsidy scheme allows the cost of interest to be included in the housing expenditure subsidy, and this will insulate authorities from the effect of rapidly rising costs.

Selective Schools (Glasgow)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the position of the selective schools in Glasgow.

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of selective schools in Glasgow.

Mr. Monro: My right hon. Friend has received and is considering Glasgow Education Authority's proposals for reorganisation of these schools. He will write to the authority as soon as he is able to do so. In the meantime I cannot make any statement.

Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the freedom of local authorities to reorganise their secondary education is subject to their producing educationally sound schemes and having prior con-

sultation with parents and teachers? As the Glasgow scheme is an educational monstrosity designed to rush through changes before local government reform at the expense of first and second-year pupils, and as consultation with parents and teachers has been an inadequate farce, will my hon. Friend reject these savage plans?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in the Glasgow schools. The answer to the first part of his question is "Yes". On the second part of his question it would be wrong for me to comment before I have considered the authority's proposals.

Mr. Galbraith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the acute interest that the proposal to butcher these fine schools is causing to countless parents who fear for their freedom of choice? To a Conservative, which I imagine my hon. Friend is, does not that mean keeping what is good? Why sacrifice these good schools on the altar of unproved comprehensiveness? When there are so many lame ducks about, surely the last thing to do is to guillotine one of Scotland's few remaining golden geese.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate my hon. Friend's active interest in the Glasgow schools. Hon. Members may be interested to know the number of communications that my right hon. Friend has received to date. There have been 5,692 separate letters and telegrams, and petitions containing 45,000 signatures. Only 21 of the letters have been in favour of the proposals. This is exclusive to the poll taken by the Scottish Daily Express, which resulted in figures of 10,456 against and only 298 for the proposals. It would be wrong for me to express an opinion on the proposals until we have considered them.

Mr. John Smith: Is not the hon. Gentleman showing his hand already by keeping up this pretence of genuine impartiality while assisting the propaganda efforts of his friends? Does not the hon. Gentleman recall in Committee upstairs hearing ad nauseamday and night from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) that the purpose of his party was to give freedom to local authorities to reorganise their secondary education? As soon as that freedom is exercised in a way that


the hon. Member for Cathcart does not approve of, he eats his words.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman can sound off as loudly as he likes. I will not comment until we have considered the proposals.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman should realise the seriousness of what he has said. The content of his previous answer was leading up to a rejection. Clearly a rejection would be based upon political principles. The measures which have been forced upon him or suggested to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) have nothing to do with the present scheme. These demands were coming up before the scheme was published. It is wrong for the Minister to try to rely upon the Daily Express when, out of 2 million petition forms sent out, only 10,000 were returned, which represents 0·5 per cent. support for the suggestions coming in.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) indicated that there was strong support for his point of view. I gave him the figures that he wished to know—

Mr. Ross: Hillhead?

Mr. Monro: Yes, Hillhead; an equally important constituency as Kilmarnock. All hon. Members opposite must await my right hon. Friend's decision.

Mr. MacArthur: When my hon. Friend is making his careful study, will he bear in mind that a great many of us believe that the proposals which he has received are educationally crazy? Will he throw out these short-sighted proposals until an early decision can be considered in a balanced way by the new structure of local government in the west of Scotland?

Mr. Monro: All the relevant facts will be taken into careful consideration while we are dealing with these proposals. Until my right hon. Friend has made a decision, I am not prepared to say more.

Mr. Small: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether these schools are privately or publicly owned?

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman has been involved with Glasgow for a long time and will certainly know the answer.

Mr. Small: Does the Under-Secretary?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Let someone tell him.

School Milk

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now prepared to issue a code of practice for the guidance of local authorities for the issue of certificates for free school milk to pupils over seven years of age, in view of the latest evidence relating to the position in Aberdeen.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: No, Sir. The decision whether a pupil's health requires that he should be provided with milk at school must depend on the clinical judgment of the medical officer. It would not be appropriate for me to attempt to influence that judgment and I would strongly deprecate any attempt by others to do so.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are two extreme examples in Aberdeen of the provision of milk: one is no child out of 632 pupils; the other is 321 out of 331 pupils? There are wide variations in between, a typical example being 90 out of 670. Do not figures of this sort show that a very difficult situation is arising and that the position of the medical officer of health is intolerable in having to try to make a proper assessment of all pupils in the city? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman issued clear guidance to local authorities in respect of medical examinations and the factors which may be taken into account? Clearly the whole concept is a monstrosity in that no equality of provision is being made.

Mr. Campbell: Clearly there must be some variation between various groups of children. But the position of medical officers is not intolerable, provided that it is left to their professional judgment to take these decisions.

Housing Demolition (Glasgow)

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dwelling houses in the City of Glasgow are scheduled for demolition; what is the annual rate of demolition; and what proportion of the cost is being met by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Younger: As houses are scheduled for demolition for a variety of reasons, and demolition costs may attract Government assistance in various ways, I do not have comprehensive information about numbers or grants. About 8,400 houses were closed or demolished in Glasgow during 1970 and about 7,400 in the first nine months of 1971.

Mr. Buchanan: The Minister will be aware that Glasgow, having been the industrial heart of Scotland, has a need to attract industry but that the sight of derelict tenements all over the city gives it a dilapidated and rundown appearance. Will he use his influence to speed up the demolition of such derelict tenements and take whatever financial measures are necessary to relieve Glasgow Corporation of the undoubtedly high costs of such demolition?

Mr. Younger: I am very much in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the effect of derelict tenements on people who may be coming to look at Glasgow as a location for industry. There are various ways in which the Government help with demolition costs—through the planning redevelopment grant, housing subsidies and the rate support grant. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are introducing in the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, currently in Committee, an entirely new slum clearance subsidy which will give a special new grant to local authorities for the costs of demolition.

Mr. Tom McMillan: Is the Minister aware that in his last figure he gave the number of closures and demolitions together? The reason for that answer being given is that the crazy procedure leading to demolition in Glasgow is costing Glasgow a fortune. First, the medical officer of health has a closing order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member giving information or seeking it?

Mr. McMillan: I am trying to point out the procedure which is holding back demolition, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that the procedures holding back the demolition are that the closing order by the medical officer of health and the demolition order do not go together? Is he further aware that in one area we find workmen coming in and demolish-

ing one close of a huge tenement building and leaving the rest? Is he still further aware that the city engineer has an immediate danger list and a long-term danger list and that, there again, workmen come in and take down one close but leave the other dangerous building?

Mr. Younger: I am aware that there are complications about demolition, particularly in a large city. But there are now strong incentives for local authorities to get on with demolition. As the rules are well known to the local authority officials involved, I am confident that they will get a lot of work done in this sphere in the coming year.

Mr. Brewis: Will my hon. Friend take careful note of what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Tom McMillan)? Is it not the case that demolitions are taking place and that not nearly enough rebuilding is going on? Should we not use the house improvement scheme much more for buildings which have a life of 10 to 20 years and not simply pull them down?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point that demolition is by no means the only answer. The increased rate of improvement grant will undoubtedly encourage local authorities to improve those houses which can be improved and provide good houses for people at less cost than new houses, in areas where they have lived and want to live for many years.

Electricity Accounts

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions he has had with the South of Scotland Electricity Board regarding their policy on customers' arrears and the demanding of security deposits.

Mr. Younger: These are matters of commercial management which are primarily for the board, but a meeting is soon to be arranged between the board and other bodies concerned.

Mr. Millan: Have not the Government some responsibility in this matter? Could they not at least put pressure or bring their influence to bear on the South of Scotland Electricity Board? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread feeling among directors of social


work that the way in which the electricity board deals with these matters is insensitive and unfair and that it ought to be changed?

Mr. Younger: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the board is extremely well aware of the need to contact social work departments closely and frequently and that it has done a lot of contacting recently. The meeting to which I referred in my answer will be with the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Department of Health and Social Security. I am sure that this will lead to a better understanding on both sides of a way in which this distasteful business can be dealt with as painlessly as possible.

Mr. Carmichael: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of frustration among social workers at the time they have to take in dealing with what I agree is a commercial problem? If the Government could take it up at their level and reinforce the directors of social work when they meet the electricity board, it would be of great help to professional social workers who spend so much time on these matters.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the problems. We would probably be well advised to await the results of the meeting to see whether the parties concerned can reach agreement. It is also worth noticing that this practice has been considered and approved by the Electricity Consultative Council which has a special responsibility to look after the interests of consumers. In the interests of all consumers, I think that a sensible arrangement of this kind is a safeguard which must take place.

Education (Deaf Children)

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for improving the provision of education for deaf children in primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Monro: My right hon. Friend has recently agreed to a proposal made by Moray House College of Education for the establishment there of a Scottish Centre for the Education of the Deaf, and his Department is currently considering how the secondary education provision for the deaf could be improved.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am grateful for that reply. May I press the hon. Gentleman to persuade local education authorities that this is a serious business, as there are too many local education authorities which do not take it seriously enough, and to provide more places for deaf children in primary and secondary schools?

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary question. I know that his own county, Lanarkshire, is looking at this matter. I hope that over the years we shall be able to provide a first-class service. However, at the moment there is no general shortage of teachers.

Teachers' Pay

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations for teachers' pay.

Mr. Monro: The Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee has been unable to agree on a recommendation for the revision of teachers' salaries from 1st April, 1972. The matter is being referred to arbitration as provided by the Remuneration of Teachers (Scotland) Act, 1967.

Mr. Rankin: I hope that that will not be used by the Government as a way of escaping from their responsibilities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 7 per cent. offered to the teachers this week is certainly not an encouragement to them to continue in the teaching profession? Does he also agree that that kind of figure, in view of the types of rises which are now taking place in other spheres of life, will not be encouraged in any way by the Government if this matter comes to their decision? Can we expect the Government to stand up for a decent wage and salary for all those in the teaching profession?

Mr. Monro: All these points will be carefully considered by the arbitration tribunal. The arbiters will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment as soon as possible, and we will have to await the report.

North-East Scotland (Gaskin Report)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent


the Gaskin Report is still needed in relation to development in the North-East of Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Since this report was published there have been welcome new developments in North-East Scotland, particularly as a result of the discovery of North Sea oil, but the report is sufficiently flexible to take account of these developments and still provides a very useful framework for planning in the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION

Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order. As you will have observed, Mr. Speaker, from the Questions on the Order Paper and the answers, and those on previous occasions, appertaining to Scotland, there have been a number of questions on the reorganisation of local government. There is a great deal of expense involved in this. I wonder whether there is any way in which you could use your good influences to see that a decision by this Parliament is taken on this subject before any more expense is incurred.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair has many responsibilities, but that is not one of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTS AND SHIPBUILDING (CREDIT)

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): With permission, I should like to make a statement about new arrangements for financing exports on credit of two years and over and for home shipbuilding. These arrangements are the result of a joint study by the Government and the clearing banks of two related problems; namely, the rate for this finance and its availability.
Under the new arrangements, the banks will continue to provide credit for exports and ships at fixed rates of interest, but from tomorrow the rates will be decided by the Government alone. The rate for exports other than ships is currently 6½ per cent. I am reducing this rate to 6 per cent. for all contracts signed from tomorrow. This change will put British exporters in a better competitive position as regards the cost of finance and

will open the door to valuable export opportunities, particularly for the capital goods industries. The rate will be kept under review by the Government. The fixed rate of interest for shipbuilding contracts, both home and export, will remain at 7 per cent., in accordance with the established agreement in O.E.C.D. to which all the major shipbuilding countries subscribe.
All finance at fixed rates will continue to be provided initially by the banks. The banks will be refinanced for any such lending beyond 18 per cent. of their current account deposits. The agreed rate of return on their lending will be calculated by reference to market rates. On current calculations, this return will be in the region of 6per cent. Any difference between the fixed rate and the agreed rate of return to the banks will be adjusted through the refinancing. The adjustment will be in favour either of the banks or of the Government, depending on the level of rates.
The new arrangements for export credit will be undertaken by the Export Credits Guarantee Department under the powers conferred by the Export Guarantees and Payments Act, 1970. The previous Government informed the House that it was their intention to use these powers to match foreign competition. The powers will continue to be available for this purpose, but I intend to use the Act for refinancing as well. I am sure that the House will agree that the powers should be used for these wider purposes for the benefit of our export trade.
The E.C.G.D. will be seeking the approval of the House as soon as possible to a Supplementary Vote for this expenditure in 1972–73, but in the meantime some of this may need to be met temporarily from the Contingencies Fund. It is the intention that refinance for home shipbuilding should be provided by the Department of Trade and Industry and legislation will be introduced shortly to obtain the necessary powers, the Issue Department of the Bank of England continuing to provide refinance for home shipbuilding until these are available.
The volume of refinance required will depend on the future growth of the banks' current acounts and of the amount of export and shipbuilding business undertaken. The amount estimated for the first full year is of the order of £350 million


to £400 million, but I assure the House that this will not involve any additional burden on the economy or any addition to the public sector borrowing requirements greater than would have occurred under a continuation of the existing scheme. The arrangements will be reviewed after three years' operation, or earlier at the request of either the banks or the Government.

Mr. Benn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, which will be very welcome. Since it is so important, we are glad that there will be an opportunity to debate it on the Supplementary Vote and on the legislation forecast.
First, how do the facilities now to be made available compare with credit facilities available from other countries? Do the Government still intend to match foreign competition? Second, why is there to be a continuing higher rate for shipbuilding credits than for other exports when the O.E.C.D. agreements appear to be under considerable stress?
Third, what is the cost of refinancing to the Exchequer in a full year? What will the size of the Supplementary Estimate be? When shall we have the major statement on subsidies for the whole British shipbuilding industry which was forecast by the Secretary of State at a meeting of the Conservative back-bench Committee yesterday and reported in The Times today, given the fact that the British shipbuilders, until they know how big a subsidy—whether £100 million or £200 million—the Government are prepared to give, simply cannot quote for ships and do not know where they are?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement emphasises the need for a full and early debate on the Government's industrial policy, which at the moment it is impossible for the House or the country fully to understand?

Mr. Noble: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming this statement. I think this will be the view of most hon. Members on both sides of the House. I cannot anticipate when my right hon. Friend will make the statement on the shipbuilding industry. I hope it may be soon. On the question about the comparability of these rates with those of other countries, it is difficult to get an exact comparison. It is fair to

say that our rates will be a little better than the German rates and about the same on balance as the American, French or Japanese. But their systems are such that they straddle the 6 per cent. rate according to the nature of the export.
The reason why the rate for shipping is above the general rate is that this is an agreed rate accepted by all the major shipbuilding producers of O.E.C.D. If we could get that agreement brought down a bit, this would be to our advantage. There would be no benefit in our trying to drop this rate unilaterally. It is difficult to give an accurate estimate of the cost of the refinancing because it will depend very much on how rates go during the coming year.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Do I understand correctly that there will be no question of considering the 7 per cent. rate for shipbuilding for three years? Second, how much of the revolving shipbuilding credit is outstanding?

Mr. Noble: If the other countries in O.E.C.D. decided to bring down the rate for shipbuilding, we would certainly follow, but we see great advantages in keeping this at a level so that there are no fluctuations or cheating on these rates. As to the revolving amount, I am afraid that without notice I have not the answer to that question.

Mr. Jay: Why did the Government not leave the general export credit rate at the lower level at which it was fixed by the previous Government, instead of putting it up quite unnecessarily and now half-heartedly bringing it down again?

Mr. Noble: The simple answer is that in the past the rate was one that the Government had to decide—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman remembers this in his day—with the banks which were providing the finance. The previous rate was maintained for a very long time and became well below what was available either outside or in any other way. Therefore, it was put up. It was brought down when the circumstances, I believe, justified it.

Mr. McMaster: Why is the rate that which has been fixed by the O.E.C.D.? How does this compare with the rate offered by our greatest competitor, Japan? Also will the limit of funds


available be sufficient, in view of inflation and the increased building capacity of our modernised yards, to cover requirements as far ahead as three years?

Mr. Noble: There is no magic about the period of three years. As I have said, the arrangements can be varied in general at the request either of the Government or the banks. I understand that the Japanese adhere to the shipbuilding rates of the O.E.C.D. agreement. There is, therefore, no competitive advantage simply from the point of view of the rates.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, following the Hill-Samuel Report, that the original policy of giving aid only to industries and companies which are commercially viable has now been reversed and is no longer Government policy? Will he therefore confirm that the new policy will apply to other industries which are not commercially viable but are seen to be in the national interest and should receive aid?

Mr. Noble: That is an interesting question but it has nothing to do with my statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that various views have been expressed by experts in shipping and shipbuilding about the rates offered by our competitors, like the Japanese, in connection with hidden subsidies being available, along with incentives, to people in the country of the shipowner? What measures are being taken internationally to ensure that there is no cheating in this matter?

Mr. Noble: A few years ago when I was responsible for Scotland I spent a great deal of time trying to get evidence about that sort of cheating. If my hon. Friend is able to obtain some, I am certain that my right hon. Friend will be only too glad either to match it or to stop it. Those involved with this problem have only too frequently received complaints from industry about apparently unfair competition, but it is exceedingly difficult to get the necessary evidence.

Mr. Millan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that on shipbuilding it is not just a question of shipbuilding but

of what happens in regard to interest rates in other O.E.C.D. countries? In other words, there is a much wider range of subsidies and assistance. Is he aware that before judging whether what he has done about interest rates is reasonable, we must have the general review of Government assistance to the shipbuilding industry which was promised a very long time ago and which is becoming increasingly and desperately urgent?

Mr. Noble: That may be so, but it is not directly involved in my statement.

Mr. James Hill: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that specialist shipbuilding yards, such as Vosper Thorneycroft, which build almost entirely warships and are suffering from a lack of orders, will be in on this generous rate?

Mr. Noble: I believe that the rate for shipbuilding is a general one, though I am afraid I do not know whether there are any particular problems in this context in regard to warships.

Mr. Dell: Will foreign shipowners, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, be able to get better terms in British shipyards than British shipowners can get, and will British shipowners be able to get as good terms at home as they can get abroad?

Mr. Noble: The latter is our intention.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is not one of the problems the fact that some exporting countries give special rates for foreign exchange, so that interest rates by themselves are not the only important factor? Is it not a fact that this can be a method by which they can exchange their foreign currency and so give a subsidy which is not enjoyed here?

Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are a number of ways in which matters of this sort can be contrived, and some of our competitors mix aid with credit. Wherever this is so we do our best to match them, and if it is outrageously unfair we do our best to bring the matter to the attention of the country concerned, and in this way we hope to maintain our competitive ability for our own yards.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in an industry which is involved in a world market of a highly


competitive nature everything depends on international comparisons between exchange rates? The facts in Germany do not accord with his remark that German shipbuilders will be able to get approximately the same rates. The German bank rate is 3 per cent. and the prime lending rate is 4½ per cent., which makes nonsense of his statement in this context.

Mr. Noble: I would not say that. I accept that there are variations in exchange rates which are quite separate from the question of credit. Nevertheless, it is important to keep credit on a competitive and comparable basis in the main areas. The question of exchange rates is, however, totally different and does not bear directly on my statement.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman look seriously at the last part of my supplementary question? Do the Government intend to make a statement about their policy towards the shipbuilding industry? Is he aware that his statement today, which we shall need to study, does not go to the core of the problem, which is the fact that no British shipbuilder is in a position to tender for orders until he knows how much hard cash the Department will make available to the industry in this country? This is a vitally important point.

Mr. Noble: I was not trying to deal flippantly with the right hon. Gentleman's question. I was simply pointing out that I could not forecast when my right hon. Friend would make that statement. I accept that the two points are connected, and I expect that my right hon. Friend will make a statement quite soon.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL BRANCH RAIDS

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that in the early hours of this morning 60 homes were raided by the Special Branch, the members of which were investigating the I.R.A. bombing at Aldershot. I am informed that the homes of four members of a political group known as International Socialists were raided.
Apparently it was a dawn raid—it took place at 6.30 this morning—and among those raided were Mr. Frank Campbell, a building trades worker who lives in Fulham; Mr. David Widgery, who I understand is distantly related to Lord Widgery and lives in Dalston; Mr. John Palmer, a well-known journalist employed by The Guardian, who lives in Wembley; and someone who lives in Bristol.
No arms of any kind were found. However, in at least one case certain political documents were taken away and I gather that they included some names and addresses of supporters and members of the International Socialists. Particularly remarkable is the fact—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I trust that he intends to bring his remarks quickly within the ambit of a point of order.

Mr. Heffer: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your ruling.
Will the Home Secretary or another member of the Government make a statement about this matter? Sixty homes were raided, not in Northern Ireland but in this country. Some of those concerned have made it absolutely clear in their writings that they are totally opposed to what happened at Aldershot and to the activities of the I.R.A. May we be assured that a statement will be made and that a discussion will take place on that statement? Is the Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go as far as is reasonable in putting his point of order. All I can say in reply is that what he has said will no doubt have been noted by those with responsibility for these matters.

Mr. Pardoe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice on one matter? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has raised on a point of order an extremely important issue of which I was cognisant. Indeed, I had intended, with your permission, to raise the subject by way of a Private Notice Question tomorrow. May I take it that a Private Notice Question on this subject will still be in order?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman decides to try to table one, I will give my decision at 12 noon tomorrow.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Nobody would wish to prevent the police from getting at the people who have committed a terrible political crime, but there is a point involved here which matters. Could we now have an assurance from the Leader of the House that he will communicate with his right hon. Friend and say that on this particular point there is concern? The two matters are disconnected, but could that be brought to the notice of his right hon. Friend.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The hon. Gentleman has very fairly put the point, as I understand it, that the two matters are disconnected. I will, of course, report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what he has said and what the House has said but I could not, of course, give any commitment because, as he fully appreciates, it is a technical matter.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government cannot give an assurance that a statement will be made, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Special Branch raid on 60 houses in the early hours of this morning in connection with the I.R.A. bombing at Aldermaston.

An Hon. Member: Aldershot. [Laughter.]

Mr. Heffer: Aldershot. This is not a laughing matter. People's homes were raided in the early hours of this morning, in this country. No arms were found. In one case, the children of Mr. Campbell, a building worker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will remember that he sought advice as to whether to raise this as a point of order. I understood that if he was allowed to raise it there would not be any application of this sort. If there is to be an application of this sort he must not go into the merits, but should deal with the reason why I should give this

precedence over today's and tomorrow's business.

Mr. Heffer: I did not speak to you personally, Mr. Speaker; I spoke to your Secretary. I said that if no statement was to be made I would raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9. I am sorry if you have not been given that information. I do not want to mislead the House, or you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone else. I am not one who tells lies. I have not made any statement to the effect that I would not raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9, and the Secretary standing next to you knows perfectly well—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can pursue his application but he must confine himself to the reason why it should have precedence.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter, because the homes of a number of people who have absolutely no connection with the Aldershot bombing have been raided. In fact, they were bitterly opposed to what happened at Aldershot. Some of these people are in a group known as the International Socialists. They do not hold my views and I do not hold their views, but they have a right, within our democratic system, to express their views, like anyone else. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I was informed by you, quite rightly, that I should not shout out from a sitting position. I trust that that applies equally to other hon. Members in this House.
Immediately after the Aldershot bombing, The Socialist Worker, which is the weekly journal of this organisation, had an article condemning the bombing, pointing out that they did not see it as in any way assisting the cause of a united Ireland or of a Socialist Ireland or of a working class policy. That was what they said; yet four of their members have been raided in the early hours of the morning, at 6.30, in their homes. They made it absolutely clear where they stand.
This is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker, because it goes to the fundamental political liberties of the British people, and we should not, merely because this country and this Government are involved in a struggle against the I.R.A., resort to policies which are totally alien to the


basic democratic rights, liberties and principles of the people of this country. I think this House regards this as a matter of very serious importance and as a specific issue.
I therefore ask that the application under Standing Order No. 9 be granted.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The Special Branch raid on 60 houses in the early hours of this morning in connection with the I.R.A. bombing at Aldershot.
I completely disregard any possible misunderstanding earlier in the day between the hon. Gentleman and members of my staff, and I give my decision on the merits of his application.
Having given consideration to what has taken place today, I express no opinion on the substance of the application but from a procedural point of view I cannot give the application precedence over today's and tomorrow's business. The application is rejected.

Oral Answers to Questions — POWERBOATS (REGULATION)

3.56 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the use of powerboats and other boats driven by motor, to provide for the licensing of their drivers, and for purposes connected therewith.
It was the tragic death of a 13-year-old girl living in my constituency that determined me to take steps to bring the growing use of powerboats under some kind of control and to introduce a national code of conduct.
The accident happened off a very crowded bathing beach at Llangrannog in Cardiganshire last summer. An eye witness of the whole tragic event wrote to me, and I cannot do better than read part of his letter to the House, because it puts very succinctly the problem, the difficulties and the horror of accidents of this kind. The letter is from a consultant surgeon at the Cardiff Royal Infirmary who happened to be on the beach with his two children at the time. He was, in fact, the doctor who endeavoured to render aid to the child, but her injuries were such that she died instantaneously.
He writes:
The weather on the afternoon concerned was exceptionally fine, and the rather small beach was densely crowded. The tide was going out and hundreds of children and adults of all ages were either paddling or bathing from the beach with some scattered swimmers perhaps 50–60 feet out from the shore. Early in the afternoon two power boats appeared towing water skiers back and fore across the bay at high speeds and landing these on a small area of the beach that was still covered by the tide. My wife commented on one or two occasions that both boats and skiers were coming in dangerously close to some of the swimmers that were furthest out from the beach. However, neither we nor anyone else really comprehended the real danger of this, and in this sense I think we must all accept some of the responsibility for what subsequently occurred. The water skiing continued for perhaps an hour or so, and whilst I was walking along the edge of the water watching my own two small children who were paddling, I was suddenly aware that one of the boats was coming at high speed and directly head on towards the beach where I was standing. Within a few seconds it had already reached the outermost swimmers, and only then did it swerve away and stop at a distance of perhaps 30 feet from the beach, and where the water was perhaps no more than 3–4 feet deep. As the boat swerved I saw one swimmer who just


managed to duck out of the way, but within a few second it was apparent that someone had been struck, when a huge pool of blood appeared in the water behind the boat and a body floated to the surface. There were scores of children nearby who saw this, and ran screaming from the water together with some adults who were understandably horrified with what they saw. I then ran into the sea and quickly helped two other men to bring the girl from the water, which we were able to do in less than half a minute from the time of the accident.
He went on to describe the injuries that this child suffered.
There is a growing interest in the arts of boating and water sports of all kinds, and in the private ownership and use of powerboats. Local authorities now have certain opportunities to control the use of boats, but not to control the licensing of the drivers and the registration of the boats, under various public health Acts dating from 1875. Not all local authorities with coastlines in their area avail themselves of those opportunities. But the time has come, because there is now increasing pressure on inland stretches of water and, therefore, more boats are using sea areas, for some national control and the introduction of a standard code of practice. Many boats are now being used that are not suitable for deep water use. They are being used close inshore; consequently, that means much greater risk to bathers and people using the water.
The time has now come for a thorough look at the whole problem and for deciding some kind of national policy. It is not possible to introduce any kind of speed restriction, and the Bill will not propose to do that. Control based on optional local legislation cannot be effective. Local Bills tend to be unenforceable. That reinforces my belief that the only practicable approach to the problem is to have separate areas set aside for the use of bathers and for boating, clearly marked so that no one can be under any misapprehension as to where boats are allowed to go and where bathers are safe to go.
I am suggesting, therefore, that there should be proposals for the indication by local authorities—this will be mandatory upon them—of which beaches shall be set aside for bathers and where it would be an offence for powerboats to approach. The Bill would also require them to

indicate by coloured marker buoys set at a reasonable distance from the shore an area that would be closed to powerboats.
I believe that the Bill would have a great deal of support from district councils which would be responsible for carrying out the task. I have been in touch with the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association. They support the general provisions of the Bill. I have had very friendly and helpful advice from the County Councils Association as well. I understand that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—RoSPA—is very concerned about the growing number of boating accidents of all kinds. I understand that last year the figure for boat accidents was over 5,000, which was an increase of about 25 per cent. over the previous year. I understand that RoSPA has made an approach to the Home Office on the general lines that I have outlined; that is, the need to divide bathers from powerboat users and the need to introduce a national code of conduct.
The Bill would provide for the introduction of a system of licensing of persons entitled to drive powerboats, with appropriate provisions for testing and the collection of fees. It would provide for the registration of these boats and for their identification, with suitable penalties for non-observance. It would require district councils to identify beaches to be reserved for bathers and from which powerboats would be excluded, and would require district councils to provide coloured marker buoys at a reasonable distance from the beaches within which area the presence of powerboats would be an offence.
In view of the widespread support for the Bill and many letters I have received from people in many coastal areas all around the country, I hope the Bill will receive the approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the use of powerboats and other boats driven by motor, to provide for the licensing of their drivers, and for purposes connected therewith: And that Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Goronwy Roberts, Mr. Elystan Morgan, Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. Jack Dormand, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. John Prescott,


Mr. R. Hughes, Mr. Harry Ewing, and Mr. R. C. Mitchell do prepare and bring it in.

POWERBOATS (REGULATION)

Mrs. Renée Short accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the use of powerboats and other boats driven by motor, to provide for the licensing of their drivers, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th March and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th March.]

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRISin the Chair]

4.5 p.m.

The Chairman: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I announce a slight alteration in the provisional selection of Amendments that I have made after representations made to me by the Opposition. It is that Amendments Nos. 179 and 180, in the second group of Amendments, would peferably be taken with Amendment No. 150. The result of that would be that the Committee could have a defence debate on the second group of Amendments and an economic debate on the third group. In that way we shall have two more orderly debates and not get into muddles. I think that is what lies behind what hon Gentlemen want.

Mr. Michael Foot: Thank you very much, Sir Robert, for the consideration you have given to our representations on this subject. We are most grateful for that.
We still consider that Amendment No. 179 may be a somewhat different subject again, but we understand these problems of grouping which arise under the Bill, and that it is not easy to overcome them. There is also the possibility—I would not wish to press this if you, Sir Robert, felt that it was unwise—that Amendment No. 198, which is taken with Amendment No. 40, in a later group of Amendments, might be taken with Amendment No. 150, because they concern two subjects which deal with the question of publication, or the secret agreement, so-called, or secret matters of that nature. It may be for the convenience of the Committee, if that happened, that Amendment No. 179 should be taken separately, again, as it deals with matters that are concerned with the quota controls from developing countries, which is a rather different subject from the matters dealt with under Amendment No. 180, which concerns economic union and matters of that nature.
I emphasise that we appreciate the difficulties in grouping these matters, and we are still most grateful that you have transferred some of the Amendments we mentioned in the representations made this morning.
However, I wish to raise with you, Sir Robert, a second matter, a matter that I raised yesterday. Again, I understand that this is not a matter for you to rule upon, but it has been raised from both sides of the Committee. It is whether it would be desirable for the Committee to consider Amendments to the first part of the Schedule, at least, with Clause 1, which would mean, I suppose, having that after we reached the end of Clause 1, or at some stage like that. We hope that the Government have had time to consider the representations made yesterday, and those made earlier in the proceedings by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). If the Government could make a statement upon that matter we would be grateful.
We put this to you, Sir Robert, as your relationships with Ministers may be more cordial than ours. If that is so, it is through you, Sir Robert, that we should like to put this to the Government. We hope to have a statement on the subject because we believe a rearrangement would contribute to the orderly nature of the debate. In a Bill of this nature it is extremely difficult for the Chair or anyone else to group together satisfactorily all the different matters that arise. If we do not take the Schedule Amendments as we suggest it will mean returning to these debates later and having renewed discussions when some of them could have been taken at an earlier stage.
We are not suggesting that the whole of the Schedule should be taken at the beginning, but this matter might be looked at.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I have considered the points which were raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) about the order in which the Committee might consider the Schedules.
Plainly, there is a link between, for instance. Clause 1 and Schedule 1, as

indeed there always is between Schedules and the Clauses to which they relate. Other hon. Members may have had more experience of this point than I, but I understand that there is no rigid rule about taking Schedules at the end of the Clauses and new Clauses. The House has, however, normally adopted the usual practice, notwithstanding the inevitable link between Schedules and certain Clauses.
There have been some instances this Session of re-arrangements of the sort now proposed, and perhaps the best case for a re-arrangement is, as sometimes happens with the Finance Bill, when a Bill deals compartmentally with a series of distinct subjects which are often arranged in parts, and then the Schedules can best be attached to a particular part. That certainly arises on the Finance Bill, and it has arisen on Bills this Session, including the Local Government Bill and the Housing Finance Bill.
But this is not such a Bill. This Bill is an integrated set of provisions; we have found, for example, that the definition of "treaties" runs right through the whole Bill, and even as between the two Parts the Schedules cannot be completely severed since part of Schedule 2, dealing with parliamentary procedure, relates to the Bill as a whole. That is certainly true also in the case of Schedule 1, which gives definitions for the whole Bill.
It may be claimed that the whole of Part I of Schedule 1 is particularly related to Clause 1, but only part of Part II of Schedule 1 is directly related to Clause 1. In Part II of Schedule 1 the definition of "enforceable Community right" is related in terms to Clause 2.
In these circumstances I have decided that there is no overriding advantage in this case in departing from the standard order of proceedings in the Committee and, therefore, no case for re-arranging that order on this Bill as there sometimes is on Finance Bills and as was desirable on other Bills this Session.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to the point of order, Sir Robert. I was listening very carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, and I was glad to notice, despite the apparently negative final conclusion of


his remarks, that he was careful to express his views in tentative terms. Perhaps therefore I might briefly emphasise two points.
Of course, the terms defined in Schedule 1 run through the Bill. That is hardly the point, because terms defined in Clause 1 run through the Bill. The question is whether the Committee is better fitted when it has just parted with Clause1 to address itself to the contents of Schedule 1. Here there is a common interest between the Government and the two sides of the Committee, because should we eventually dispose of the Clauses, many of the explanations which are fresh in our minds now, and which would be carried forward to the consideration of Schedule 1, would have been obliterated by much that would have happened in the intervening months and might, therefore, require to be repeated. Therefore, on the grounds of both time and efficiency I submit that it would be a gain and an abbreviation to be able to consider the Schedule at once.
4.15 p.m.
My second point is that Schedule 1 is germane to Clause 1 in the sense that most Schedules in most Bills are not germane even to the Clauses to which they are appended. Clause 1 sets the meaning of the entire Bill. It is not a Clause by itself from which we shall then proceed to other matters which also stand by themselves. Clause 1 sets the meaning of the whole Bill, as does Schedule 1, which in logic requires to be considered before we proceed to Clause 2 and subsequent Clauses.
If, as I hope, my hon. and learned Friend, in view of the terms in which he phrased his answer, is open to reconsider the matter, I will offer one point of difference from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I think it would be too pernickety to split the Schedule, and convenience would better be served in taking the Schedule as a whole even though elements of Part II of the Schedule refer to Clause 2.
I also have a minor submission to make to you, Sir Robert, on the grouping of Amendments.

The Chairman: I think I can dispose of that now. There is not much that I can say on what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr.

Powell) said on the first point. I would like to leave the selection as it is now.

Mr. Michael Foot: I understand the problems of selection and of making a change which inconveniences other hon. Members who have already seen the postting, and, therefore, I fully acknowledge that my submission now is different from those I have made previously when I have sought to influence the selection that you would be making at a future date, Sir Robert. But I would have thought it was not a major matter but a minor suggestion that Amendment No. 198 should be taken with Amendment No. 150. This seems to me a logical arrangement which would not lead to inconvenience for any hon. Member.

The Chairman: I shall be prepared to concede that point.

Mr. Foot: Thank you, Sir Robert. On Amendments No. 179 and No. 180, I understand that this causes difficulties and that you have ruled that you want to stand by the arrangement you have already made. We shall, no doubt, have to seek some other way in which we can look afresh at the question of Amendment No.180, which deals with an extremely important matter, and I am sure you will take this into consideration.

The Chairman: I did not mean to imply that I was altering what I said at the beginning. That stands. I was merely trying to meet the hon. Member on his last suggestion to me.

Mr. Foot: I understand that you are standing by the ruling you made previously, Sir Robert, and I understand that it is difficult to alter it. On Amendment No. 180 we shall have to seek a debate by some other means.
As for taking another look at the Schedule, in the light of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy will be prepared to reconsider the proposal, as it would be more convenient and he did not say that he had absolutely and finally decided the Government's view on it. The last item in Part I of the Schedule has figured prominently in many of our debates. But it is a most extensive question that is raised, and some of the Amendments


raise questions on how other groups of treaties should be incorporated in those Schedules.
What we would seek is not to have debates on every treaty that might be itemised in the Schedule, but at least to have a method by which under Amendments to the Schedule we should have a grouping of the main forms of treaties; that is, five or six different groupings of treaties so that the Schedule would set out clearly what is intended. Those are matters we have certainly touched on in the debates on the Amendments to Clause 1, and it will be extremely inconvenient if all that must be considered again at the end of the Bill.
So I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that he will consider the matter afresh during the interval, however long or short that may be, before we next have a parliamentary day to discuss the Bill, and will then make a statement as a result of which we shall have the opportunity to look at the Schedule in what we believe to be a much more appropriate and tidy way.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Chairman: I hope we shall be able to get started fairly soon.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. Do I understand that with Amendment No. 150 we shall take Amendment No. 198, and are we also to take Amendments Nos. 179 and 180?

The Chairman: I think it is the second group that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with. It is Amendments Nos. 148, 149 and 187. The next group is Amendments Nos. 150, 179, 180 and 198.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: May I ask you two questions, Sir Robert, arising out of what you have just been good enough to say? First, on the first group of Amendments, can you confirm what I think you said provisionally when I raised the matter yesterday, that you will call Amendment No. 31 for a separate Division? Second, what are your intentions in regard to calling a Division on Amendment No. 187 in the name of my right hon. Friends and myself?

The Chairman: I hope to be able to oblige the right hon. and learned Gentleman on both those counts.

Mr. Michael English: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said. I am sure that, as he said, the entire Committee is grateful to you, Sir Robert, for separating the defence debate. You will realise that, provided that we do not have too many separate debates, the passage of the Bill is not held up. However, the grouping including Amendment No. 150 will make for a very confusing debate. I am grateful to you for putting Amendment No. 198 with it, because that also relates to secrecy of treaties, but we are to have with it Amendment No. 179, on the underdeveloped countries, and Amendment No. 180, on economic and monetary union and a common currency. It will be difficult for any hon. Member to make a speech on all those three subjects together. May I suggest that as a possible alternative you consider taking Amendments Nos. 150 and 198, still together, at some other stage, so that at least we could have economic affairs separated from secrecy of treaties?

The Chairman: There have been considerable discussions about the matter. I think we should be wiser now to let it stand as it is, though I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said and should like to help him. Perhaps I shall be able to help him another time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have two short points of order, Sir Robert, My first relates to the question of the Schedule and the consideration the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will undoubtedly give to the representations that have been made. The Clause is a definition Clause, and the Schedule has two parts, both of which deal with definitions. Whether a matter is defined in the Clause or in the Schedule seems to be rather a matter of chance, as all three parts of the Bill relate to definitions. If they were not taken together, some people would wonder why. That fact alone is something the right hon. and learned Gentleman might bear in mind before making a statement on the matter.
My second point relates to Amendment No. 179, in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself, which deals with


the relations of the E.E.C. with the third world through limits on quota imports. Although you have ruled on this, Sir Robert, may I ask you to bear in mind that this is a subject which stands on its own and has considerable ramifications? It is now grouped with another matter with which it does not sit happily in the interests of orderly debate. Perhaps you will bear that in mind when a further selection might have to be made bearing on this subject.

The Chairman: I am always happy to bear in mind anything that hon. Members want me to, and I shall do that. Mr. Peter Shore—

Mr. Powell: On a point of order. I apologise, Sir Robert, for prolonging these difficult points for a few seconds, but may I inquire whether it is your intention on the group to which we now come, which I think consists of Amendments Nos. 29, 194 and 31, to allow a separate Division on Amendment No. 31, since it would appear that Amendment No. 29 might be a probing Amendment?

The Chairman: I think I have already said so.

Clause 1

Short Title and Interpretation

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (4).

The Chairman: With this Amendment the Committee may also discuss Amendment No. 194, in line 22, after 'agreement', insert:
'including an agreement entered into with reference to any of the Community Treaties and signed by one or more of the Member States,'
and Amendment No. 31, in line 23, at end add
'including declarations and exchanges of letters'.

Mr. Shore: Today we confront for the first time the last part of the Clause. We turn again to the vast, almost boundless, scope of the treaty complex, to use the Solicitor-General's phrase, the complex of agreements and obligations which the Government have accepted in the course of their entry negotiations.
As we journey day by day through this labyrinth of treaties and agreements, I have the sense of being on a voyage of discovery and exploration. I have also a growing sense of confidence and hope, encouraged not just by the votes last night, by the slender majorities the Government command from their hesitant supporters, but by the daily spectacle of the arguments and assertions of the Treasury Bench being ground to powder in our debates, ground by those very parliamentary procedures of legislative scrutiny that the Bill would, over a large part of our affairs, so mischievously remove.
Day by day it becomes clearer, at least to those who attend our debates—I am glad to see that the number is growing—that the treaties and the Bill embody terms that comprise not only a national defeat—indeed, a humiliation—but a surrender of democratic and parliamentary rights which Members of Parliament can hardly bear to contemplate, rights which have been inherited and defended successfully in our own lifetime, and which we intend to pass on to our successors.
4.30 p.m.
So let the Government not deceive themselves that this matter is in any way settled, and I hope that they will not mislead and deceive the Governments of the Six in this respect. Perhaps it is right that I should make this point today because we have coming to our shores, and, in particular, to Chequers, this weekend President Pompidou of France, who will be engaging with the Prime Minister in very far-reaching discussions, about which we have yet been told virtually nothing, which follow on their previous discussions at the Elysée Palace.
It would be very wrong for the President of France to assume that any of these discussions will be based upon the reality of the Bill passing through this House. I say this deliberately because I think the President of France may so easily be misled by the difference between the status of the French Assembly under its Constitution and the powers of the House of Commons. So, in case there is any further doubt on this matter, let me say that we shall not sit quietly behind what we consider to be the bars of this treaty; we shall not be content to be prisoners in a cage of


these constraints; we shall assert the continuing sovereignty of Parliament. I say again that what this Parliament can do a successor Parliament can certainly undo.
The first Amendment in this cluster is aimed, of course, at deleting Clause 1(4), and in moving its deletion we are expressing our very great dissatisfaction with this subsection. We are drawing attention to the fact that in our view it is extraordinarily vague and open-ended. Here perhaps I may make a point of the relationship that may exist between Clause 1(4) and Clause 1(3). I think the Committee will recall that part of our complaint about subsection (3) is that it seems almost to allow Ministers to say that treaties are Community treaties simply because they say that they are. That seems to be the major test of what a Community treaty is. It is, indeed, a very loose restraint around Ministers that is provided by the words of that subsection.
What I rather fear now on Clause 1(4) is that we have in a sense a further refinement of the Clause 1(3) process, for we can now have a situation in which a piece of paper of indeterminate status can become a treaty, and a Community treaty, again because a Minister says so. That is the principal and opening criticism that I want to make of the drafting of Clause 1(4).
What we have tried to do in the associated Amendments which are to be discussed with Amendment No. 29 is to clarify what the international agreements referred to in Clause 1(4) are, what kinds of agreements those words actually encompass. We know, because the words tell us so, that protocols and annexes are included in Clause 1(4), so that should be clear enough. What we have to consider as well as almost a feature of substantial Community documents is not only the main text of the agreements, the annexes and the protocols but the other kinds of half-creatures which fill up so many pages of the text. The half-creatures I am referring to are those things which are called declarations; they may be joint declarations, they can be single declarations; there are exchanges of letters, and here in the Treaty of Accession there is a further category, if I may so call it, which comes under

the heading "Procedure for the adoption of certain decisions". All these things are within the compass of the text, and what we want to find out is what their status is.
I should like to say a few words about these various categories, and I may say that there are categories beyond those which are mentioned in the Treaty of Accession. I shall have a word to say about some of those other categories, too, in a moment. But the matters covered here are very important indeed. I am not going to go through the whole lot, because that is not my purpose, but I want to draw attention to what seem to me to be one or two of the most important and most representative.
One of the declarations to which I am referring covers an area of the world which contains, I suppose, about 20 per cent. or one third of the world's population; the whole of the Asian Commonwealth, the whole of the Indian subcontinent and South-East Asia are covered by a declaration of intent on page 117 of this document. It is not for me on this occasion to go into the content of these things, but I think it is scandalous that the whole of the Asian Commonwealth of 600 million people should merit only two paragraphs in a treaty of this kind and that their interests should be put in such a form.
If people want to know what joy they may get from our proposal to accede to the treaty complex, let them look at the words here. All they will get is an agreement or a declaration
to examine with these countries
the Asian countries
such problems as may arise in the field of trade with a view to seeking appropriate solutions, taking into account the effect of the generalised tariff preference scheme and the situation of the other developing countries in the same geographical area.
That really is closing the book on our responsibilities to the Asian Commonwealth with hardly a whimper. But there it is; that is one of the matters covered under the subject of declarations, and I suppose it is conceivable that the people in the Asian Commonwealth area may attach some importance to those words, or they may not. But at least they have aright to know, and we have a right to know, where that declaration stands in terms of its status in relation to the rest


of the treaties and matters covered in these documents.
There are other matters, including—and I shall not develop this—the free movement of workers, the definition of our own nationality, which are part of the declarations, and there are a number of other declarations. It is interesting to see the Minister of Agriculture here because the largest single number of declarations refer to matters in which he is presumably deeply involved. They are not very strong or binding declarations, and if anyone doubts that I advise him to have a look at the one on hill farming. It is very cautious indeed, and I do not think it would be likely to give satisfaction to hill farmers.
The next category that I want to get clear is the exchange of letters. There is only one exchange of letters in the document itself, and, as we know, it concerns the question of the sterling balances—a question which I am quite sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would rather not discuss because it is not exactly one of his strong points. When I say that I do not mean to be in any way offensive to him, and he will agree that it is nevertheless a matter of enormous importance. In this exchange of letters covering the future of sterling and the sterling balances, commitments are entered into which are very far-reaching commitments indeed, however imprecise.
There we have it, that we agree to an orderly run-down of the sterling balances. We agree that they should not increase in the period before they begin to run down. I do not know whether they have stopped increasing. I should have thought that, with the bad management of our national affairs in which the Treasury has so conspicuously indulged in the last year by maintaining interest rates at a ludicrously high level when the dollar has been weak, a great flood of money has come in. I should be surprised, therefore, if the sterling balances had not greatly increased, although not only and not necessarily over a permanent and long period. I suggest that they have perhaps increased contrary to the undertaking understood to have been given when the Prime Minister went to Paris last May.
The other aspect of the agreement is the orderly run-down, which is qualified by the assertion that we would have due regard to the effect on our balance of payments. We also have to have regard to the commitment of the Six to establish within a 10-year period an economic and monetary union. To me it is almost inconceivable that we could have an economic and monetary union commitment. It is inconceivable that we should have it in any event; it is certainly inconceivable that we should have it until the sterling balance problem has been finally and securely settled.
We are in a weak and worrying position. We have an open commitment to run down the sterling balances. We know that we shall plunge into the most serious balance of payments problem with ever-increasing severity as we march through the transitional period, and at the end of the day we have facing us the requirement to enter into an economic and monetary union with fixed exchange rates and other of those damaging and difficult commitments at the end of the decade. So this is a very serious matter. We want to know the standing and status of this exchange of letters.
The other matter I would like to get clear, in seeking to understand the various agreements other than the formal treaty, the protocol and annexes, is the status of what is called a "resolution" of the Council of Ministers of the Six. The House will remember that the economic and monetary union commitment of the Six was launched at The Hague summit meeting in December, 1969. It was then put out to the Werner Committee at the beginning of 1970. The Committee made an interim report in June, 1970, and its final report later that year. The position so far is that the Council of Ministers, while broadly accepting this thing in terms of formal procedures, accepted it nevertheless with a resolution in February, 1971. It is not a decision; it is not a directive or any of those other words we are used to in dealing with the vocabulary of decision making in Europe. But it clearly has a status as a resolution of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow, West): It is a treaty under the definition of Clause 1(4).

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the chair]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Shore: That is a very important point. I want to be clear whether it is a treaty and to what extent we have entered into a substantial commitment. If it is a treaty in terms of the definitions we are using here, in terms of its binding commitment upon us, how does it differ from other declarations and other forms of words also included in the treaty complex about which we have heard so much? It is very important to get it clear.
I refer to the Treaty of Accession itself. Article 3 contains an extremely important and open-ended assertion of the commitment which the Government have entered into. Paragraph 3 of Article 3 says:
The new Member States are in the same situation as the original Member States in respect of declarations or resolutions"—
note the words—
of, or other positions taken up by, the Council and in respect of those concerning the European Communities adopted by common agreement of the Member States; they will accordingly observe the principles and guidelines deriving from those declarations, resolutions or other positions and will take such measures as may be necessary to ensure their implementation.
That is a most extraordinarily open-ended commitment, and it uses none of the formal language of the treaty. It is part of the treaty, but the words used are not the familiar words we have come to recognise as expressing the obligations between States. We are talking now about guidelines, resolutions, objectives, principles, but they are to be as binding upon us as upon other member States. Those who have studied these matters will know that the vast dream world of a recreated Charlemagnean Empire which fascinates and absorbs the Prime Minister is what is covered by those words. They cover virtually every matter which is of concern, socially, economically, politically and in terms of security, to the people of this country. So I want to come to the status and meaning of this agreement as well. I want to know how far the Government feel committed by the resolution of the Council of Ministers of February, 1971, to the formation of an economic and monetary union if this country were to enter the Common Market.
I want now to refer to the letter which the Chairman of Ways and Means wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) in order to help us as to what Amendments were out of order, as it were. He classified certain Amendments into groups. He had a category B which were out of order in his judgment. These included an Amendment which sought to draw attention precisely to the economic and monetary union resolution. My hon. Friend sought to tack that on, as it were, to a part of Clause 1 and discuss it specifically, but it was ruled out of order, with others,
because they related to declarations of intent and such like which have no legal force and therefore fall outside the scope of the Bill".
I am anxious to have not the observations of the Chair in this matter but the observations of the Government, if they can help us, in order to get clear how they see the matter.
I expect we shall get some reply—I do not know how firm nor how much our enlightenment will be added to—at the end of this debate, I hope that we shall have some help on this because it is very important. So much is brought into these treaties, in the loose sense of the word, referring to the documents in the treaty complex, protocols, annexes, declarations of intent, exchanges of letters and so on, that it is inevitable because it is such a comprehensive complex that we should be struck by the odd things which are excluded. To be excluded from this rag-bag list of woolly pledges, commitments and prospects for the future, is a mark of the lowest possible status in terms of international agreement.
Let us look at the two most conspicuous absentees. I invite the comments of the Government Front Bench on these. The first and most important absentee is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's famous Lancaster House agreement on Commonwealth sugar, which was published in Hansard on 9th June, 1971. That was the occasion on which he said:
The British Government and other Commonwealth Government participating regard this offer
that is, the offer of the Communities—
as a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market in the enlarged Community on fair terms for the quantities of sugar covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in respect of all its existing developing member countries. The developing Commonwealth


countries will continue to plan their future production on this basis."—[Official Report, 9th June, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 1051.]
There is that pledge, not in principle but in terms of the same quantities to follow on at the end of the present Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I mention this because I do not understand how this document could have been excluded from the rag-bag which forms the treaty complex we have mentioned. The status of this declaration must be low indeed not to qualify to be brought within this complex, not even as a declaration or whatever it may be. It has no status whatever in terms of the treaty complex that we have been talking about. I am very worried about this, and I hope that we shall hear this afternoon a satisfactory explanation from the Government as to why it has been excluded.
There is no question at all that when the Government want to be explicit on a matter and get it clear on the record with the Six they can do so. Anyone who looks at the various documents in the Treaty of Accession could not fail to come at least to that conclusion. I shall quote one point to illustrate what I mean. Heaven knows what the reasons were, but the Government wanted to get the exchange of letters on sterling firmly established beyond a peradventure. They wanted it absolutely on the nail. So the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote a letter to Monsieur Thorn, the Luxembourg Foreign Minister. He set out what he understood the agreement did, and ended by saying:
I would be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm the agreement of the Governments of the Member States of the Community…to the above-mentioned document.
That is how he went about it when he wanted a firm, clear assurance on the matter of the agreement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman got a reply, and an exact mirror of his own letter from the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg Grand Duchy, ending with the words:
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of this communication and to confirm the agreement of the Governments of the Member States of the Community…to the declaration contained in paragraph 1 of your letter.
It is quite clear that they accepted it. Why could we not have had a similar

agreement on the matter of Commonwealth sugar? Why in heaven's name could we not have had it if it meant what Ministers said it meant? That is the first conspicuous absentee from the treaty complex.
I turn to the second, which some may think even more important. All of us who have been involved in these debates over the last 18 months would agree that the so-called doctrine of the national veto on matters of special importance to member States has played a crucial part in the argument, and perhaps even in the exercise of persuasion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues embarked upon on his side of the House and even on this side. They have relied most heavily on this.
We all know that there has been, as it were, a point in the history of the Six where that doctrine of a national veto was asserted. It was asserted in the heyday of power of the late President de Gaulle, and he brought the Community to a stop. There is a document which records the terms, as it were, on which he returned to the Community and agreed that the thing should function again several months after France had walked out. That was the agreement to disagree which was signed in Luxembourg at the beginning of 1966. I should like the Committee to note what it says. This is the substantive paragraph; the comments of the Five and the One follow:
Where, in the case of decisions which may be taken by majority vote on a proposal of the Commission, very important interests of one or more partners are at stake, the Members of the Council will endeavour, within a reasonable time, to reach solutions which can be adopted by all the Members of the Council while respecting their mutual interests and those of the Community in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty.
That is saying that they will try to reach agreement but it does not prejudice the rule of majority vote. It goes on to say:
With regard to the foregoing paragraph, the French delegation considers that where very important interests are at stake the discussion must be continued until unanimous agreement is reached.
Then it goes on to say:
The six delegations note that there is a divergence of views on what should be done in the event of failure to reach complete agreement.


Finally, it says:
The six delegations nevertheless consider that this divergence does not prevent the Community's work being resumed in accordance with the normal procedure.
It is on this form of words, which embraces an agreement, that the whole edifice of the doctrine of national veto is founded and on which the Government have based their claims.
5.0 p.m.
This platform, however weak it may be, is the second most conspicuous absentee from the rag-bag of documents that make up the treaty complex. The volumes contain all those matters but not this one, the one which gives whatever credence there may be to the one defensive doctrine which the Government have advanced in all the debates to persuade us that they would not be overborne in matters of serious dispute about the Community once we were a member of it.
I hope that in the explanations and definitions that the Front Bench will give of what is a treaty, what is an international agreement and what is the status of the different kinds of international agreements, they will also tell us why some of the most important matters with which the negotiations have been involved have been excluded altogether from the treaty complex.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) covered a great deal of ground with his characteristic industry and thoroughness. I propose to confine my observations almost entirely to the last but most important matter which he raised of the most conspicuous absentee, the so-called Luxembourg Convention, and to refer to it in the context of Amendment No. 31.
I have throughout these debates stressed the necessity of examining closely the definition of treaties largely from the point of view of circumscription. The reason for that is that the "liabilities, obligations and restrictions", to use the language of Clause 2(1), of these treaties give rise to the self-executing regulations which, contrary to all our practice and precedent, will become in every respect directly applicable and binding on this country.
That is not the whole of the story. The language of Clause 2(1), although mainly

onerous, is not entirely onerous. In addition to "liabilities, obligations and restrictions", we see in the first line of the subsection a reference to "rights" and in the third line a reference to "remedies". It follows, therefore, if there are rights and remedies, that it is important that they be specified by the Bill and clearly incorporated by definition. As the Bill is drafted the only rights and remedies are those contained in the treaties and enumerated, the 11 categories which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) was good enough to identify for us last week. It is very important, if we are to have the benefit of the rights and remedies, that all of them, whether identified in the treaties at present or existing only in declarations, exchanges of letters and the like and not as yet part of the Bill, should be incorporated.
Facile princeps in this category of declarations so far omitted is the so-called Luxembourg Convention, a declaration with many names and of mixed significance. The Luxembourg Convention, this record of disagreement, or whatever its proper nomenclature should be, with the so-called right of veto which is said to derive from it, has been consistently paraded before the anxious eyes of Parliament and the people and used to still doubts and calm fears as to the inevitable and sweeping loss of sovereignty which accession to the Community would entail. Over and over again this so-called Luxembourg Convention has been prayed in aid with a view to seeking to show that the rigours of the treaty do not mean what they say, and that reality is not to be found in the rigours of the treaty but in this claimed right of veto which it is said is given by the so-called Luxembourg Convention and guaranteed subsequently by the conversations between the President of the French Republic and the Prime Minister of this country.
The introduction of this theme is clearly stated in paragraph 29 of the White Paper, the "notorious paragraph", if I may borrow an epithet from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which states:
The practical working of the Community accordingly reflects the reality that sovereign Governments are represented round the table. On a question where a Government considers that vital national interests are involved…


Then follow these words:
it is established that the decision should be unanimous.
That is what we were told in July last year. Yet having been told that we must look at the practice as represented by the so-called Luxembourg Convention, having been told not to scan the minutiae of the treaties too closely but to balance them with these practical realities, what do we find in the Bill now that we are being asked to legislate entry to the Community? We find that the treaties are expressly incorporated and accorded a clear statutory right to spawn this illimitable profusion of regulations, but we find on the other hand that the Luxembourg Convention gets no place or mention in these statutory documents.
Even more important than the Luxembourg Convention in a sense are the talks to which I referred and which for convenience we call the Heath-Pompidou talks. The Luxembourg Convention was a record of disagreement. Two views were stated, as the right hon. Member for Stepney's citation a moment ago showed, but the declaration of President Pompidou was an affirmation that the French point of view as recorded in the Convention would prevail; in other words, that the doctrine of unanimity from whence derives the right of veto should prevail. On the faith of that assurance that that would be the position if Britain entered the Community Parliament was asked to approve the principle of entry in October. It was wheeled out as the ark of the covenant. It was the answer to all the doubts and anxieties respecting sovereignty—doubts and anxieties which were deep, widespread and instinctive in the British people as a whole.
Those who have followed the law are familiar with the concept of agreements partly oral and partly in writing, or with the concept of oral agreements evidenced in writing. May not the declarations of President Pompidou come within one or other of those categories—oral agreements evidenced or supplemented in writing? If that be so, should they not constitute declarations which should be incorporated within the meaning of Amendment No. 31? Since so much has been built on these declarations, on the manner in which decisions would be taken, and on the degree to which we

would have a right of objection or veto in matters contrary to our vital national interests, perhaps this point could be mentioned in the Government's reply.

Mr. Deakins: If the Luxembourg Convention is an international agreement, it therefore ranks as a treaty under Clause 1(4). If, however, it is to be regarded as an international disagreement, it is not a treaty, and, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is very important.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If it is an international agreement it should come under subsection (4) as it stands, but nobody reading the convention could interpret it as an agreement. It is clear from the text, and was abundantly clear from the citation made by the right hon. Member for Stepney, that it is not an agreement in any proper or legal sense. I have always argued that it is wrongly called an agreement. It is a record of disagreement because it states two points of view, but does not decide between them that there is no consensus ad idem between the parties. Therefore, for that reason it would not as it stands come under subsection (4) We require Amendment No. 31 so that it can be brought in as a declaration. It is a declaration of intent—of mixed and unresolved intent—but is indisputably a declaration and would come within Amendment No. 31, though outside subsection (4). I am obliged to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) for clarifying that point.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I find myself persuaded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but would he deal with the possible answer that he might conceivably be given; namely, that an international agreement to disagree is none the less an international agreement? Would he kindly deal with that aspect? It seems to me that this is the best possible answer that can be given, and perhaps he would deal with that point.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If that is the best possible answer I can anticipate, then I have singularly little to fear. Looking back on a long forensic career, I only wish that every case had been as easy as that. I think the situation is as I put it in answer to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West.
Having had this degree of importance attributed to the Luxembourg so-called Convention, and there having been reference to the importance of the declarations of M. Pompidou, whether oral or in writing, we find none of these things incorporated in the Bill. The harsh words of the treaty alone are in the Bill. Undoubtedly, the Council and Commission may make regulations without restraint of unanimity, and these regulations are to be binding in every respect and to be directly applicable in this country.
5.15 p.m.
Now we are face to face with the realities of the statutory position. We have now come to the practicalities of legislation as distinct from the generalities of October. What do we find? We find that safeguards on which so much reliance was placed in October are nowhere to be found. They are invisible. They are like the emperor's clothes—much talked of but without substance or reality.
Amendment No. 31 would at least do something to put matters right. It would open the way to give statutory effect to such safeguards as the British people think they possess, and indeed have been led to believe they will possess. I have always been doubtful about the efficiacy and practicability of the imposed unanimity rule and right of veto. I gave my reasons for this on Second Reading, and I will not repeat them now. I believe it would be even worse for Britain to enter without safeguards and without any shelter against the harsh requirements of the treaties which the Bill is incorporating into British law.
What is happening here—and this is a grave matter—is that a dangerous dichotomy is developing between law and parctice, between what is specified legally and what is said to be the practical position. We are told the practical position here will provide convenient escape routes from our legal obligations and commitments under the treaties. But will it, when put to the test?
I have been very familiar with this dichotomy in my professional practice over the years. I remember in one of the earliest building contract cases that came to me taking part in a long conference with the builders and instructing solicitors. I said to the builders "In the whole

course of these exchanges was there at any time any reference to the conditions of contract?" There was a short pause and then somebody said, "Oh, no. You see, at that time everything was most friendly". The point is that by the time the matter reached me as counsel things were far from friendly and people were looking at the conditions of contract. It was the conditions of contract which prevailed and not the practical working which the White Paper seems to put up in substitution.
The practical men—the sort of men we are invited to see ourselves as—can go a long way in averting their gaze from contractual obligations and in seeking to shrug them off, but they cannot go the whole way. Nemesis limps sternly, if slowly, behind and overtakes in the end. We are being asked to put our country's neck in this noose. We are being asked to avert our gaze from the harsh realities of the treaty and trust to the soothing generalities of paragraph 29 of the White Paper. It would be unwise to do this. What has been proved so often in commercial affairs will prove to be so again in the great affairs of the nation. It is a risk that prudent men would not take in their own affairs, and it is a risk that Members of Parliament are not entitled to take in the far greater affairs of the nation.
I conclude, therefore, that these Amendments, especially No. 31, should be supported. They will help at any rate to close the gap and to redress the balance. The drafting may be criticised. The Solicitor-General may seek to do that. But I repeat what I said in the small hours of this morning. That is not a reason for disallowing an Amendment. It has never been so considered in the House. Matters of drafting are matters for the expert attention of the Government, and they have opportunities in the subsequent stages of the Bill to correct any imperfections of drafting that they may identify. At this stage we are concerned with the principle of the matter, and I say that the principle thrown up by the Amendment is important and right. Therefore, it should be supported.

Mr. Jay: It is only courteous to welcome the Solicitor-General back to our debates. There was a time last night when it appeared that he had given up the struggle altogether and that we were


faced with the rather grim prospect of every Amendment being answered by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Therefore, we are very glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman back with us this afternoon, if only for that reason.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has established plainly that the White Paper of last July, in stating that the supposed veto guaranteed by the Luxembourg agreement or disagreement had been established as a right, was entirely misleading the public. This statement that the right of veto had been established was yet another falsehood in the White Paper and another deception in the long tale of misrepresentation with which the Government presented this policy and the Bill to this House. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear no more about the Luxembourg compromise as the ultimate guarantee of our rights and our national interest in future, unless the Government are prepared at least to write it into the Bill.
The second reason why I welcome the reappearance of the Solicitor-General, even though perhaps it may be a brief one, is this. In this Committee it is the duty of the minority of us who are not lawyers to do our best to understand the Bill. It is the duty of those who are lawyers, especially those who sit on the Treasury Bench, to try to enlighten the rest of us as to what it means.
One problem that we ought to have clarified when considering this group of Amendments is what is meant by "an international agreement". If it is clear to hon. and learned Members on both sides of the Committee, it is far from clear to me. We debate this Amendment under the shadow of Clause 2, which declares that all these obligations, restrictions and binding powers, wherever they are found in a Community treaty, will be obligatory on the courts and on the public of this country.
In approaching these Amendments we have to remember that still we have not got it satisfactorily established in subsection (3) that treaties which are not Community treaties at all cannot be declared to be Community treaties by a Government for the purposes of this Bill. It may be that this cannot be done. But we still have had no satisfactory explana-

tion of it. If we cannot get it today, it is one of the points to which we shall have to return when we debate the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", which no doubt is a good way ahead and will not be reached today.
The position is that all these treaties under Clause 2 will have a binding effect. We do not yet know that the treaties having a binding effect will even be limited to those which properly can be called Community treaties. In addition, we now learn that for this purpose a treaty, as in subsection (4), includes any international agreement. To the non-legal expert that opens up a large field, certainly for the future, over and above what are included as treaties in the documents that we have before us already.
In a debate on an earlier Amendment, I was bold enough to ask the Solicitor-General to make clear what constituted an international agreement: did it have to be an agreement between Governments, could it be an agreement between unofficial bodies, could it be an agreement between companies or even between individuals? Though the Solicitor-General got some assistance from the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, I did not find his explanation entirely clear.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Yes, I say between governments, between persons who are international legal persons, which can include States or organisations of States in certain circumstances, such as, for example, the European Community, which is an international person and, I think"—
That suggests some doubt even in his own mind—
such bodies as the International Labour Organisation or the United Nations.
A little later, after some help from the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, the Solicitor-General said:
That is the effect of what I mean, and that is comprised by the phrase 'any international agreement', an agreement which would qualify as an international agreement, entered into by a person in public international law".—[Official Report, 8th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1531–2.]
I hope that the Solicitor-General will help the Committee today by making clear what for this purpose is a person in public international law, assuming for the moment that he got the expression right on that occasion. I take it that


this includes agreements between Governments and between governmental organisations. That seems reasonably clear. I presume that it would include the United Nations or agencies of the United Nations, bodies like the O.E.C.D., G.A.T.T., the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Are they international persons for this purpose?
In addition, there are many organisations of a semi-official kind which go a good deal beyond those to which I have referred. Would the phrase include what is known as O.P.E.C., the organisation of oil-producing countries, which is a very important political and commercial force in the world at present? Would it include the Pan-Arab League, which, I suppose, is an organisation of Governments? Going even wider, would it include the Vatican and other international religious organisations, which, as far as I know without the help of legal advice, might be called "international legal persons"?
The Solicitor-General appeared to say that it could not include ordinary commercial or industrial companies. The question was raised in a previous debate about whether the international oil companies could be regarded as international legal persons for this purpose, and whether agreements between them and between them and individuals might not, therefore, be classified as treaties for the purpose of the Clause. Would Standard Oil or Shell, for example, count legally as "international legal persons"? Would it make any difference if we were dealing with a commercial organisation in which the Government had a large holding? For instance, would B.P. be in any different position from Shell or Standard Oil?
5.30 p.m.
Where would organisations which are, in effect, State trading organisations and operate on an international scale stand for the purpose of the Clause? I can think of many organisations, British and non-British, which are not only State supported or State owned, but international trading organisations: the British Steel Corporation, the British Sugar Corporation or the Commonwealth Development Corporation. There are many more in existence within the confines of the United Kingdom.
Would State trading organisations of Communist countries be classed as "international legal persons" for this purpose? They are trading and industrial organisations, but they are also, in one sense, State organisations. Similar State trading or State purchasing enterprises exist in non-Communist countries, such as the Australian and Canadian Wheat Boards and various other enterprises of that kind whose main purpose is the purchase of raw materials.
We would like to know which, if any, of those different types of organisations would be included as "international legal persons" for the purpose of the Clause. Even if it is only a small minority, it opens up an extraordinarily large area of international agreements which apparently according to the Clause, are classed as treaties and, if classed as treaties, can be declared to imply and involve all the obligations, restrictions and binding effects of Clause 2.
I hope, therefore, that we may have this question clarified by our legal advisers this afternoon so that, at any rate, one portion of this still very obscure Clause may be made rather clearer than it is.

Mr. Percy Grieve: No one who has sat through the first three days of our long debates on the Committee stage of the Bill can have failed to be struck by the sameness of the speeches and the points which have been made upon each and every Amendment which has been discussed.
The reason is not far to seek. No one pretends that the Bill is perfect in the way that it sets out what it has to do. No doubt there will be much room for Amendments of a constructive kind as we proceed. However, I venture to suggest that so far all that we have seen is an extended Second Reading consideration of every point which has arisen. The Amendments proposed and the speeches made in support of them for hour after hour by those seeking to make the Amendments—I submit that this group of Amendments is no exception—are really seeking to go behind that which Parliament agreed in principle last October; namely, that this country should accede to the European Economic Community, and, by its vote on Second Reading, that it should seek to do so by giving


the treaty which marks our accession the force of law in this country.

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that to seek for information about the meaning of the phrase "international agreement" in the Clause is a Second Reading point which somehow conflicts with decisions taken earlier?

Mr. Grieve: No, of course not. I am not to be taken as generalising and saying that every point made by every speaker during every minute of our prolonged discussions does not seek for information. I am submitting that each speech which we have heard—the speech which we have heard from the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) in moving the Amendments is no exception—has contained nothing more than an attack upon the principle of our adhesion—[Interruption.] Yes indeed. The principle—[Interruption.] I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not interrupt me. I have been present throughout the debate this afternoon and throughout the greater part of the debate yesterday, save when I went out to dinner in the Dining Room. I venture to think that no one in the Chamber has been present for a longer period than I during all our debates.

Mr. Richard Body: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that throughout the debates we have asked question after question after question but have received non-answer after non-answer after non-answer?

Mr. Grieve: I cannot possibly accept my hon. Friend's intervention. I pay personal tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who, in long and painstaking speeches, have explained the Clauses with which we have been dealing. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may not like what I say, but I venture to suggest that it is the truth and that it is apparent to anybody who has been listening to our debates.

Mr. Neil Marten: How does my hon. and learned Friend reconcile that view with the view set out by our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor

of the Duchy last night when he paid tribute to yesterday's debate for being long, interesting, and very important, or words to that effect?

Mr. Grieve: I will not join issue with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on that. [Laughter.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh. I am not suggesting that we have not had useful discussions; but for every five minutes of useful discussion we have had 55 minutes of time wasting going behind the principle of the Bill. [Interruption.] The reasons are not far to seek. I recognise the profound feelings of those who oppose our adhering to the Treaty of Rome, but they have brought out those feelings in the debates on these technical Amendments.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. Is it not time, particularly in view of his strictures, that the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed himself to the Amendments moved by my right hon. Friend?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) has been interrupted a good many times.

Mr. Grieve: I shall come to the Amendments in good time. The points which I am making are relevant to the Amendments, which I suggest have been yet more pegs on which to hang the general comments which have been made.
I now propose to comment on the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney in moving the Amendments. He began, as his speeches have begun on Amendment after Amendment, with an attack upon the honesty of Ministers and gave the impression of conjuring up a whole web of suspicion and resentment about the Government's motives in this legislation. However, all this goes behind the principle which we have already determined. This was apparent in the right hon. Gentleman's comments and in the comments of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on the Luxembourg Convention.
I was sorry to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) compare understandings between great


nations, which are the foundation of our affairs, with the position of clients of his who were up against those who had defaulted on a contract which he had considered at an early stage of his career at the Bar. I am second to none in pride in my own profession and in admiration, respect and friendship for my right hon. and learned Friend, but when I hear understandings which are the foundation of relationships between nations compared with the sort of arrangements made between contracting parties one or other of whom may be more or less honest and default, I am irresistibly reminded of something said to me many years ago by one of my friends in my own early days at the Bar—which I do not accept—"A lawyer takes all knowledge for his province and makes it provincial".

Mr. English: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not dispute that the law relating to treaties in international law is derived from the law relating to contracts in Roman law, which was basically, as I understood it, the point being made by his right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Grieve: I am far from saying that treaties at an international level are not contracts between States. So they are. But there are also, and have been throughout history, honourable understandings between honourable States which have been the foundation of international relations. The Entente Cordiale between France and this country, which was the foundation of our relations with France and of the partnership which led us victorious to the end of the First World War, was founded on no treaty. It was an understanding.
If, because they are suspicious and resentful of the arrangements which we are making to adhere to the European Community, hon. Members opposite dismissed understandings as unreliable, they are dismissing what has been the foundation of honourable arrangements between countries for many years past. One cannot but feel behind this kind of comment a fear of change, a Chauvinistic looking backward which is afraid of the change which this country is making.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton): If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to

give the Committee a learned disposition on the philosophical basis of contract law, which seems to be his purpose, he might consider the social contract between this place and the people who sent us here. I want to know, and have been seeking to get to know quite unsuccessfully throughout these debates, where is the authority in contract given by the people of this country. No mandate has been given to the Government of the day to enter into these contracts. The hon. and learned Member is merely talking about machinery and not about the honourable contract which I feel towards the people who sent me here and who did not give me or any other Member any authority to enter into these treaties. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would address himself to that matter, I should be very grateful.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member takes me to task for dealing with a matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) who is sitting beside him. For that, I make no apology, because I did my best to answer the hon. Gentleman. As to his relationships with his constituents, I should be delighted to advise him outside this Chamber, but I should be out of order in seeking to deal with that point now.
I am now coming to the Amendment—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I have been dealing with these Amendments all along, and I have not strayed from the paths of the general discussion on both sides of the Committee. I have listened to speeches which have gone on for as long as 90 minutes on technical matters, to the great tedium of such young people as might have thought we would be having an interesting debate.
5.45 p.m.
On the first of the proposed Amendments, to leave out subsection (4) would be to deprive the Clause of definition. It would then fall into the very vice which so many hon. Members opposite have been criticising. That is the short and irrefutable answer to this point. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for Stepney say with regard to subsection (4), "A piece of paper of indeterminate status becomes a treaty because a Minister says so." I think I have quoted him accurately: I wrote down the words as he used them.
Yet that same right hon. Member has also put his name to Amendment No. 31, which would add at the end of line 23 the words:
including declarations and exchanges of letters".
If anything could be vaguer than that, I should have to look a long way to find it. This shows the contradictory nature of the statements of the right hon. Member for Stepney.
The Amendments are very much of the same quality as many others which we have discussed. They contribute nothing to the Bill as an effective means of doing what Parliament has decided to do, and I for one shall oppose them.

Mr. English: That speech by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) was somewhat arrogant—

Mr. John Mendelson: And ignorant.

Mr. English: I am coming to that point.
For an hon. Member opposite to accuse hon. Members on this side of a fear of change is a remarkable thing in itself. I was always under the impression that there were at the moment, alas, more Conservatives on his side of the Committee than on mine.
I fail to understand the hon. and learned Member's first point in comparison with his last. His first was that every speech that he had heard was the same, that they were all Second Reading speeches, hanging general principles upon the pegs of Amendments. Yet he ended by saying that he had sat here for hour after hour listening to us discuss technical matters. But technical matters must be points of detail and the very opposite of Second Reading speeches.

Mr. Grieve: I accept that I said that Second Reading speeches were being hung upon the peg of discussions of technical Amendments. I do not accept that I said that all speeches which we had heard were Second Reading speeches.

Mr. English: The hon. and learned Member corrected himself on that point, after hon. Members on both sides had pointed out that he was wrong. But I should like to turn to more important personalities.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), I am most

pleased to welcome back the Solicitor-General—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: No—my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

Mr. English: I am sorry?

Mr. Jenkins: To correct the situation—I would not normally bother—may I be allowed to say that I do not particularly welcome back the Solicitor-General?

Mr. English: I deeply apologise to my hon. Friend for attributing such a view to him.
Last night, when listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and his dissection of the difference between what the Solicitor-General had said in a previous debate and the truth—a dissection amply confirmed later by the Chancellor of the Duchy's accepting my right hon. Friend's view—I began to think that we were in a strange situation. We seemed to have with us a monster named Geoffrey with two heads, one answering in one voice in one debate and the other answering in another voice in the next debate.
In response to my remarks last night the Solicitor-General said that he would not answer my questions about the law of treaties because he wanted to do so when answering the points made on the Amendment now before the Committee. I trust, therefore, that he has prepared a good answer for this occasion.
I accept what the learned author Granville Williams once said that a good lawyer is not necessarily one who knows more about the law than another person but one who knows better where to find it. I trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman has found out all the answers to the points that were raised yesterday. I have a few additional questions to ask him and I trust that when replying he will not fob me off with promises of later answers.
Why is this subsection in the Bill? In other words, what at present is a treaty in British law, since I presume that the object of the subsection, the elimination of which we are discussing, is to change the definition of a treaty in British law, for it has no relation to international law or, as far as I understand it, to the law of the Communities.
The Convention on the Law of Treaties to which I referred yesterday—I did so because the Solicitor-General quoted it as evidential—defines a treaty as:
An international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation".
That would obviously include an exchange of letters. Equally obvious, however, is the fact that for some purposes Her Majesty's Government wish to extend the normal definition of a treaty to include items which do not fall within it. We can only assume that they wish to include, for example, matters not in written form or matters not governed by international law.
The main restrictions on the international definition are that it must be in written form and be governed by international law. Presumably, therefore, we are considering one of those two restrictions; and if the Government are thinking in terms of international law, then this subsection is designed to extricate them from some difficulty. Perhaps they are trying to define a treaty in more extensive terms in British law.
Nevertheless, there seems to be behind this subsection a desire to include oral agreements, and last night I mentioned the obvious and great one of the Heath-Pompidou agreement. Presumably, to enforce such an agreement one would need evidence of it. Heads of Government and State do not meet alone. Usually they require interpreters, and have many officials with them. They also normally require someone to take and transcribe a record of their conversations, because they are too important to be left to their recollection.
However, they met in secret in the sense that the public at large do not know what the agreement is about. We still do not know to this day what the Prime Minister agreed with the President of France in relation to the Community. I asked this question on two occasions yesterday of the Solicitor-General, but I have not yet had an answer. I want to know whether any part of that agreement related to the practices of the Community. The communiqué said that they reached "a complete identity of view on the working" of the institutions of the Community. Does that mean that we shall always take

the French dictatorial line rather than the line of, say, the Dutch or the Germans? I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General has been instructed not to answer this question for fear of explaining a portion of a secret agreement.
An important factor puzzles me. Under this Clause, and particularly under this subsection, the decision whether an item is a treaty is the Government's alone, and it seems that the effect of this provision is to give the Government the extraordinary power of acting illegally under the law of the Communities, which we may be about to join. Meanwhile, in Clause 3 the courts are instructed that
For the purposes of all legal proceedings any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any Community instrument, shall be treated as a question of law (and, if not referred to the European Court, be for determination as such in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court).
They are to follow Community law, the principles laid down by, and the relevant decisions of, the European Court.
This means that in respect of any Community instrument—later this is defined as any instrument of any of the Community's institutions—they are to follow Community law. Presumably, therefore, it does not make any difference whether or not we declare something to be a treaty. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Solihull may be interested to learn that all our discussions are perhaps a waste of time in a sense greater than he meant because we are instructing the courts to follow Community law and, in effect, to obey any instruments and decisions of Community institutions—"Community institutions" are defined in extremely wide terms later. Presumably a Community treaty is such an instrument; a decision of the Council of Ministers must be such an instrument and, in the appropriate terms of Community law, any document of the Council of Ministers or of the Commission or Assembly are to be enforced in the law of this country.
One therefore wonders whether this part of the Bill has a purpose other than one, which is to leave the Government with complete power to decide all these matters for themselves. It is not even a question of the Government's having to come to the House of Commons for a mere Order in Council approval. They can simply


agree these matters with other States inside a Community institution, because it will then be a Community instrument which must be enforced in English law.

[Sir MYER GALPERNin the Chair]

6.0 p.m.

So one wonders what the relationship is between all these matters. A very good example is that mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney—the Luxembourg agreement. What are the Government going to do if they conclude an agreement with, say, the President of France, saying that they have a complete identity of view on the working of the institutions? That includes the Luxembourg agreement, presumably. But I should have thought that there is no doubt that in Community law the interpretation of the other five members of the Community is the interpretation that would be upheld by the European Court. The European Court is bound to uphold in simple, straightforward terms what is decided in accordance with the treaties. Under them, things are decided by a certain majority. All this is specified, and there is a residual clause which says that if it is not otherwise specified matters are decided by a simple majority of States. So all possibilities, including the residual possibility, have been covered.

Mr. Deakins: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Luxembourg Convention may not be a Community treaty or instrument, and therefore may not be susceptible of interpretation by the rest of the Community or the courts of justice? That would be a very serious situation.

Mr. English: I am aware that the Council of Ministers discussed something in secret—something that has never been totally published—because I am aware that at the time of that decision M. Harmel, the President of the Council of Ministers, came to the Assembly and gave his views, starting off with "personellement"—saying that personally he believed that there was a particular interpretation, the implication being that somebody else did not. But at the time there was no clear indication of the Council's views, because it could not reach unanimity on its views and had decided not to say. The nearest analogy would be for a Cabinet Minister to come before us and say, "Personally, I believe it is

so, but I am not telling you whether or not the Cabinet has agreed it".
Going back to the Luxembourg Agreement and the Heath-Pompidou Agreement—is the Solicitor-General going to tell us this time whether, as was stated, there is a complete identity of view on the working of the Community institutions? Does that mean that he accepts the French view of the Luxembourg Agreement, or does he accept the view of the other five? And if he accepts the French view, will he tell us whether he thinks that view is lawful under Community law?

Dr. John Gilbert: As everybody is making a few informal remarks at the start of an address to the Committee on this Amendment, I should like to welcome the representative of the Liberal Party. It is the same representative of the Liberal Party that we have had all along. He is the only one who seems to be taking a consistent interest in our proceedings. I am sure that he will bear in mind the remarks made at the weekend by Professor Dahrendorf, one of the leading liberal Europeans, or European Liberals. He said that when a liberal party gets larger, the larger it gets the less liberal it becomes.
I would have addresed a few remarks to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) which would have been some assistance to him with his constituency association, but as he is not here I shall have to deny myself that pleasure.
I want to make just one other reference to remarks made earlier today, including what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). He was discussing explicitly the importance of what is down in black and white in treaty form, because one never knows when one may need to rely upon the clauses of the contract. Of course, matters of this sort have been the stuff of our debates. The right hon. and learned Member did not cite a clear example in international law, as I recall; he just cited one out of his own vast legal experience. I put it to him and the Committee that we have a very clear and important example of the sort of thing that he was talking about, in international terms, in connection with the agreement this country


entered into for the manufacture of the Concorde aircraft, because at the time that that agreement was entered into there was no thought on the part of the British Government that it might be necesary to make provision for a cancellation clause.
It is not my purpose today to enter into the merits of the question whether we should have proceeded with the manufacture of the Concorde, but I submit that one thing is clear beyond peradventure: various British Governments have from time to time considered the desirability of not proceeding further with that project because the vast sums of money that we were having to pay for it were becoming cumulatively very burdensome on the national ecenomy, but every time they considered whether or not to withdraw from that contract they found that there was nothing in it that enabled them to do so. Even in the business of friends it is essential to get clear exactly what is in the agreement.
I turn briefly to the subject of Amendment No. 31, on the exchange of letters. I shall confine my remarks to the exchange of letters on monetary questions, beginning on page 107 of the document on the Treaty of Accession. This is a remarkable exchange of letters. If my secretary had been responsible for conducting my correspondence in the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg exchanged theirs, I do not think that I should have got much work done. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster writes a long and detailed letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg and back comes the reply of M. Thorn to the Chancellor of the Duchy:
Your Excellency,
You were good enough to make the following communication to me in your letter of today's date: 
Then he merely repeats the whole of the letter. That seems to me an extraordinary way of doing business. The only thing that he does say is,
Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurance of my highest consideration.
If we are going to conduct our correspondence with Community Ministers in that way we shall have a deluge of paper and time-wasting bureaucracy hitherto unknown even in this country.
To come to a more serious and substantial point: the first paragraph of the letter of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of 22nd January reads:
At the Ministerial Meeting of the Conference on 7 June, 1971, it was agreed that the declaration on monetary questions which I made at the Meeting should form the subject of an exchange of letters…
That is the letter's only reference to an agreement. The agreement in the mind of the Chancellor of the Duchy was, apparently, that there should be an exchange of letters. He goes on to say that the exchange of letters should be annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession. Nothing in the letter says that the declaration contained in his letter was itself agreed. The only agreement as far as the Chancellor was concerned was that letters should be exchanged.
M. Thorn's letter—going beyond the part which merely repeats the Chancellor's letter—contains the following substantive contribution:
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of this communication and to confirm the agreement of the Governments of the Member States…to the declaration contained in paragraph 1 of your letter.
That is at the top of page 109. So now the agreement has been metamorphosed from one in the mind of the Chancellor of the Duchy as an exchange of letters into one on behalf of the member States and the Governments of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and Norway to the declaration contained in paragraph 1. So be it. We appear to have two separate agreements.
The interesting thing is that at some stage in the game we clearly had only an oral agreement. That is why the provisions of Clause 1(4) are clearly in need of clarification. It is not specified whether an international agreement embraces both oral and written agreements. What we need to know is precisely the significance of this exchange of letters. That is why Amendment No. 31 is on the Order Paper. If this agreement is to be enforced in time, and if it is part of the consideration for our being admitted to the Community, why is it merely here in the form of an exchange of letters? Why is it not part of the Treaty of Accession, or one of the protocols? Why is it the only subject singled out in Cmnd. 4862, Parts I and II, under the heading "Exchange of


Letters"? It surely cannot be because the subject of this exchange of letters is unimportant.
It will be within the recollection of every member of the Committee that the Chancellor of the Duchy had to make a statement about this exchange of letters or the declaration of intent that falls within them. It is within the memory of everyone that the French Government have found the undertaking in the first two sub-paragraphs of paragraph 1 of the Chancellor's letter a matter of supreme importance, and though we have never had it absolutely clear that it is part of the consideration for our being admitted—at least in terms of a concession of that fact from the Government Front Bench—the fact that it is in this volume is clear enough indication that that is the way it should be regarded.
It takes very little knowledge of contemporary economic history to know that the French Government have always been jealous of the world status of the two reserve currencies—the dollar and the pound—and that they have engaged in a sustained and protracted campaign to reduce their status. I make no criticism of this activity, but just observe it as a fact. Therefore, we ought to draw our attention closely to exactly what is conceded—if that is the right word—in this exchange of letters. Sub-paragraph (a) reads:
We are prepared to envisage an orderly and gradual run-down of official sterling balances after our accession.
The word "envisaged" caused me similar difficulty to that which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) had with the word "ancillary" a few days ago. The word "envisage" can mean a great many things. The Government ought to make clear whether "envisage" really means "encourage", or means that the Government will sit back passively watching a rundown of our official sterling balances or even take deliberate steps to bring about such a rundown.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Government may merely wish to contemplate the rundown in a remote sort of way?

Dr. Gilbert: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. No doubt it will have been taken on board

by the Government and we shall have their views as to how we should interpret "envisage" before we end our discussion of the Amendment.
We have had no proper discussion in the House of Commons of this exchange of letters, except that which we are able to have on the Amendment. No one can suggest that this is not a matter of vast importance, because the official sterling balances, as could easily be submitted, are part of the very cement of the Commonwealth and, with the exception of Canada, those countries which hold official sterling balances are very largely co-terminous with the Commonwealth. It is understandable that a great deal of the trade connections that flow between Commonwealth countries and Britain are based not just upon the fact that they have Commonwealth preference but on the existence of a monetary system which is tied in with ours in the sterling area. To run down the official sterling balances as an act of policy would be more truly destructive of the existence of the Commonwealth even than the abandonment of Commonwealth preference in its present attenuated form. Yet we have no clear indication of the significance of this exchange of letters, and how binding it is on Britain with implications of that sort.
6.15 p.m.
I briefly explore some of the further implications of winding up our official sterling balance position. Sterling balances have not been the great drag on our economic independence that has so often been put to us by hon. Members of different parties. The idea, sold to the House by the Chancellor as a great relief, was that we should be able to rid ourselves of some incubus if we managed to run down these balances. That view holds an echo on this side of the Committee. I am not persuaded of its force. I would not go so far as to be adamant to the contrary, but the case has by no means been made for so drastic a step as that.
The pattern of the movement of official sterling balances over the years has been remarkably steady. The title to them has fluctuated from time to time, as between different holders—one country's holding having risen as another's has dropped. But by and large the total of official sterling balances has been a remarkably


stable factor in our international balance of payments. Very few of the sterling crises from which this country has suffered have in any way been attributable to movements in the official balances. The difficulties that we have had have normally involved movement of capital rather than a basic weakness in our trading position, even with respect to movements of short-term, privately owned capital and usually capital that has been in the hands of holders outside the sterling area, and various other factors—the leads and lags of trade and short and forward selling by holders of sterling who anticipate movements in the rate; but the official balances—the subject of this exchange of letters—have been a very modest matter of concern to British Governments since the war. It has been held that we have been inhibited in certain of our policies because of the existence of these balances, even though they may not have contributed greatly—

Mr. Peter Rees: On a point of order. In case I should be fortunate enough to catch your eye in the debate, Sir Myer, I should be grateful for some guidance. Is it in order, on the Amendment, to discuss the rôle of sterling as a reserve currency?

The Temporary Chairman: As long as it is just a passing reference—which I think the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) is making. I hope that the hon. Member will then come to the Amendment proper.

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to you, Sir Myer. This matter is a consideration of the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees). We are talking about a very important matter which, to all appearances, the Government are trying to smuggle through under the heading of an exchange of letters. The Committee has a right to know whether this constitutes a treaty binding on the Government. It is in the same volume as everything else—the declarations and protocols—and there is bound up in the middle an exchange of letters dealing with matters of the most profound importance.
It is fundamentally unsatisfactory that we should not know exactly the status of this exchange of letters.

Mr. Spearing: There is a declaration in the same volume where the words:
recorded his agreement to this statement
are used. Would my hon. Friend tell me whether the word "agreement" is used in the exchange of letters? If it is used in the right context, does that not imply that the exchange of letters amounted to an international agreement, and therefore came within the terms of subsection (4)?

Dr. Gilbert: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), who is far more expert in these matters than I. The term "agreement" occurs twice in the exchange of letters. First, it is in the letter from the Chancellor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Luxembourg, where the agreement appears to relate merely to the fact of the exchange of letters rather than to the content of the declaration which is the subject of the exchange. The word is also used in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letter and then it is repeated, because his wording is incorporated in the Foreign Minister's letter, which says:
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of this communication and to confirm the agreement of the Governments…to the declaration contained in paragraph 1 of your letter".
I am trying to establish that this is a matter of the most profound importance, on which we have had no guidance from the Government. We do not know whether there is a binding obligation on the British Government to run down the sterling balances. If there is, we have been no indication of the way in which it will happen. We know that in paragraph 1(c) of the exchange of letters the Government have said, on page 107:
In the meantime we shall manage our policies with a view to stabilising official sterling balances in a way which would be consistent with these longer term objectives".
These are extremely anodyne phrases. They could cover a very great deal. It would be helpful to have an indication from the Government of what policy steps they consider themselves bound to in terms of the agreement—if it is an agreement—contained in paragraph 1 (c) of the exchange of letters. Together with the proposals for economic and monetary union, this has some of the most far reaching implications for this country under the Treaty of Accession. It is a


matter that has been given far less attention than it merits.
We have been given to understand that the possession of these sterling balances was a great incubus upon the country. We have found our freedom to manœuvre and our ability to change our exchange rate, when it was absolutely vital in the country's interest to do so, severely restricted. We were told that we could not do so because a great many of the sterling area countries, particularly the less-developed countries, held so much of their exchanges in sterling balances that if devalued they would suffer a grevious loss. The remedies that are now being suggested—

Mr. J. T. Price: I would very much like to hear my hon. Friend's views as to how this principle applied to the Persian Gulf Sheikhdoms, for example, who were very large holders of sterling balances for long periods. They were technically underdeveloped but economically they were some of the most powerful small States because they were the foundation of the power needed by the developed countries.

The Temporary Chairman: We cannot pursue that point. It is strictly out of order.

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Myer, and for the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), but I do not intend to follow him in it.
We need much more information about the proposed remedy that the sterling balances should be funded in some way. This is not in the exchange of letters, but we need more information because it is one of the least explored implications—for this country and the Commonwealth—of the Treaty of Rome. We have no idea to what extent the declaration embodied in the exchange of letters is binding upon this country. We have always heard that because of the existence of the sterling balances we should be unable to have the degree of international independence that we want in terms of being able to move our own exchange rate when it is vital. We are being asked to surrender that independence under the proposals contained later in the Bill for economic and monetary union.
The exchange of letters, taken with those proposals which are the inevitable

consequence of our intended entry into the Community, are matters of supreme importance, and it is totally unsatisfactory that they should be embodied in the document. We have not the faintest idea of its significance, and it is time that the Government made it clear whether they regard this as a treaty and an international agreement under the terms of Clause 1(4).

Mr. Powell: I should be happy, but on some other occasion, to explore with the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) or with any other takers the past of the sterling balances and their ramifications; but I am more concerned now to do the two things which I think are the main objects of the Amendment. The first is to elucidate the precise meaning and extent of the definition in Clause 1(4), and the second is to throw up, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), the more profound matters that are involved in the definition and specification of a "treaty" for the purposes of the Bill.
I regret, but I am sure he has very good reasons, that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General did not seek to intervene at an earlier stage in the debate, because it would have been helpful—although we have the benefit of his statement on 8th March on the meaning of the term "international agreement"—to have heard his explanation of the subsection at greater length. In the absence of that explanation I can only put some of the difficulties which I feel in an interrogative form and as dilemmas rather than as positive observations.
Perhaps I can crystallise these difficulties most conveniently by referring to the appendix, already frequently mentioned in these debates, to the Treaty of Accession. In Cmd. 4862 vol. 1, there is a long list of instruments headed "Community Treaties and Related Instruments". What I find difficult to decide is whether all the instruments specified in that index are international agreements—I am sure that some are—in such a way as to bring them within the definition of "treaty" for the purposes of subsection (4).

Mr. Deakins: I think this point might have been answered by the Government


in publishing the 10 volumes which included all the instruments set out in the appendix to which the right hon. Member has referred under the general heading on each of these 10 volumes, "Community Treaties".

Mr. Powell: That may be so; but it is difficult for the Committee to rely upon the title of a Command Paper, or, indeed, the title of an appendix in interpreting the Bill, and I think we are justified in pursuing the matter in order to be absolutely sure. Certainly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) experienced some difficulty; for he ended his speech with a criticism of Amendment No. 31 on the grounds that it was intolerable, or at any rate objectionable, that a mere exchange of letters should be brought within the scope of the subsection.

Mr. Grieve: In saying that, I meant any exchange of letters, and the effect of Amendment No. 31 would be to make any exchange of letters, irrespective of their content, subject to subsection (4).

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Powell: With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I do not think it would, because subsection (4) is subordinate to the definition of "Community treaties" in the rest of the Clause, and the exchange of letters would have to be related to the Community and its affairs in the manner specified in subsection (2).
But the point I was making was that we do find in this list of instruments at least two exchanges of letters. Admittedly, those exchanges of letters are between bodies which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on 8th March thought—he was not sure—might be international persons capable of making a treaty, because he gave instances of legal persons and included:
…I think, such bodies as the International Labour Organisation…"—[Official Report, 8th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1531.]
So it may well be that F.A.O. and the International Bureau of Weights and Measures—which is one of the parties to the exchanges of letters in the Appendix—are international persons for the purposes of the subsection. Nevertheless it is somewhat surprising that the exchange of letters there specified should be an

international agreement and thereby a treaty for the purposes of the Bill.
But when we look further into the list in the Appendix we find more surprising matters. We find, for example, on page 141, a final communiqué of a conference of Heads of State and government. I suppose it is arguable that the Heads of State can be contracting parties to a treaty, and that therefore a communiqué about their conference is an international agreement and thus a treaty.
The next item on the very same page is a
resolution of the Council and of the representatives of the Governments of the member States concerning the attainment by stages of economic and monetary union".
Again, it may be that the persons participating in that resolution were international persons and that the same consequences follow. I can only say that even these instruments would, I think, fall outside the normal concept of an international agreement.
Much more difficult and much more relevant in practice are other items which occur on the previous page, page 140, of the Treaty of Accession. I will read one of them only:
Decision of 21 June 1971 of the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting in the Council"—
I select for special emphasis the words "meeting in the Council"—
on tariff preferences for certain iron and steel products originating in developing countries.
Here, surely, is the act of a Community institution. As a decision taken by the representatives of member States "meeting in the Council", it is a decision of the Council. It seems wildly difficult to envisage that acts and decisions of the Council, just because the representatives of the member States are "meeting in the Council", are international agreements and therefore treaties for the purposes of subsection (4).
Therefore we have this dilemma on the wording of the Bill, a dilemma which I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will clearly resolve. It may be that some of these items are not international agreements and therefore not treaties. On that hypothesis, the question that follows is: suppose that some of them are to have effect in the law of this country—as, for example, tariff quotas and tariff preferences in the case


I have mentioned—and require law to be made which will govern the behaviour of the citizens of this country? How then, if they are not brought within the scope and action of treaties under the Clause, are those decisions to be made effective in the law of this country? There seems in that case to be a serious gap. Are they to be made effective by some other method outside the mechanics of the Bill? Are they to be made effective by ad hoclegislation or subordinate legislation? That seems to me to be the difficulty, unless we say that every one of those documents, so disparate in their character, so difficult in many cases to recognise as international agreements, is nevertheless an international agreement.
Then I take the other prong of the dilemma. Suppose that my hon. and learned Friend's answer is, "Yes, these are all international agreements. All these exchanges of letters that are mentioned are international agreements; so are those decisions of the Council; so are the communiqués of the conference; and so are the resolutions." He may say, "Everything that you find in that Appendix is an international agreement, is therefore a treaty and has all the effects of a treaty under the Clause". I must confess that in that case I still find myself in a great difficulty, one which I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull will share to the full.
This is a list which relates to the past, a list of the agreements and instruments made before accession. If they are treaties, these are part of the definition of "pre-accession treaties". But the Clause does not only refer to the past; it refers also to the future. If these can be treaties for the purpose of the Bill, then so can any exchange of letters which the Government in future may choose to regard as international agreements, and so attain the full force and effect in the law of this country which attaches to Community treaties as defined in the Bill. The point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull was very apposite. He asked, "How are we to know what exchanges of letters will in future be elevated to this power and importance?"
So, on either view, we are in a great difficulty. On either view we are liable to find that the effect of the Clause is

to give a Government of this country in the future very wide discretionary and arbitrary power as to the way in which they use the Bill to change the law of this country and impose duties upon its citizens. I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will address himself very seriously to that difficulty.
The matter goes further than mere definition. Here I return briefly to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and other hon. Members. It goes to the fundamental sense of the term "treaty" as the basis of what we are doing in the Bill.
I suppose the two basic treaties for the purpose of this Bill are the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Accession. "Yes", says my right hon. and learned Friend, "but when you read the Treaty of Rome to which this Bill enables us to accede—for our accession to which this Bill is indispensable—and when you look at the various articles of that treaty, you must not take account of what you read: you must take account of something else." We must take account, for example, of what has been ironically, but I think not inaccurately, described in these debates as the Luxembourg disagreement. So in order to know what it is by which we as a nation are going to be bound and from which all these consequences will flow for the law of this country we are invited to look both at a treaty which is a treaty and is before us and also at a document or agreement which may or may not be a treaty but which certainly is not formally before us.
I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend, in posing that difficulty which really goes to the heart of our resistance to what is called for in this Bill, threw up a profound contrast between the acceptance of law in this country and the acceptance of law in the European Economic Community. Here I repeat what I said last night: in drawing attention to a difference one does not depreciate, and in what I am about to say I mean no atom of disrespect to the legal systems or the forms or manner of government of our neighbours on the mainland of Europe. But I say this, that not only the attitude of this House but the instinctive and habitual attitude of the people of this country towards law, towards the words of a statute, towards the context


of an obligation, is not shared on the other side of the Channel. The approach is different.
Recently M. Malraux published a little book in which he recorded some of the last sayings of the late President de Gaulle, and one of those sayings struck me very deeply. It was where President de Gaulle, in reflective mood, said:
One of the great qualities of the Scandinavian and the Anglo-Saxon peoples is their respect for law.
Now, in drawing that contrast with the Latin peoples, with the peoples, broadly speaking, of the European Economic Community, General de Gaulle was not, I am sure, depreciating them; he was simply taking account of what is a marked difference between ourselves and them. It is a difference which is very apposite to the powers, the procedure and the very life of this House. The attention of this House to the wording of statutes, the jealous care with which in these debates we are scrutinising every word of every Clause in this Bill, is not hair-splitting, still less is it time-wasting; it is due to the fact that in this country a law, an Act of Parliament, once made, is respected precisely as it is textually.
What a contrast, to be told of the very basic treaty to which we are to accede, "No, you will not need to worry about the wording; you will not be bound, you will find, by the terms of that treaty; you need take no notice of part of this article or that article, because there has been an agreement between certain Heads of State, which is not a treaty at all. It is that of which account will be taken." There is a fundamental incompatibility between that approach to law and obligation and the approach to law and obligation which is traditional in this country, bred into the bone of this country, and essential to the work of the House in legislation.
So I think it was right that my right hon. and learned Friend, while calling for an elucidation such as we have not yet had of the precise meaning and extent, not only now but for the future, of the definition in Clause 1(4), should also have pointed to the larger background and the contrast between the vague power of the Executive to modify law and agreements which is part of the case of the Government and those prin-

ciples on which it is the business of this House to insist.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In welcoming the return of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I should like to say that it is a pleasure to see both Tweedledum and Tweedledee on the Government Front Bench together. If at an earlier stage I seemed lacking in courtesy to the Solicitor-General, I should like to say that one of the results of the debates here has been that we have seen in some respects the Mr. Hyde element rather than the Dr. Jekyll element in the Solicitor-General's personality. During previous discussions here I have had some differences of opinion with him, but we have always been able to understand what the differences were about. It is only these debates that seem to have acted as a sort of poison phial upon the Solicitor-General. He either resorts to lengthy and discursive remarks in reply to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee or with scant courtesy quite frequently fails to reply to points which have been made. It was for this reason that I felt less than enthusiastic about the welcome given to him by my hon. Friend and I hope that in the future we shall have a chance to see more of the Dr. Jekyll we have known in the past, particularly in reply to this present debate.
To follow what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was saying, what is indeed rather puzzling to those of us who feel that one of the conditions for the respect of law is that one shall know what the law is, is the imprecision of the situation with which we are now faced. The Solicitor-General told me in a previous debate that I had nothing to worry about on a particular article in the Treaty of Rome. He said it was no longer operative, it was in the past, and there was no need to bother about it any more. This is rather disturbing, and in order to try and discover exactly what the situation is, not only in regard to the large and broad and important matters which we have been discussing but also in relation to particular issues, I have been trying to follow through a single case. I have been rather alarmed to find that apparently something is occurring in this area of which, so far as I can see, most people are unaware, and if this is happening in one


case it may be happening in others. So I think it worth while to spend a few minutes looking through one piece of legislation to see what it is about and how it occurs.
In the Clause which we are trying to amend, a treaty includes any international agreement. If we refer to the document which is a translation of secondary legislation of the European Communities, Part 9, the English text, and turn to page 195 of that document, we find set out No. 68/369, Directive of the Council, "Right of Establishment", and this says:
Having regard to the Treaty setting up the European Economic Community and in particular Article 54(2) and (3) thereof…
Then, to make sure that we are on the right lines, we look at Article 54. Paragraph 2 says:
In order to give effect to this general programme"—
for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment—
or, in the absence of such a programme, in order to move a stage towards achieving freedom of establishment as regards a particular occupation, the Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Assembly, issue directives, based on a unanimous decision during the first stage and thereafter on a qualified majority decision.
Paragraph 3 of Article 54—imported into the Right of Establishment document—lays down that
The Council and the Commission shall carry out the duties devolving upon them under the above provisions, in particular…
and it then specifies the situations in which they do it. I return to the document itself, which says
Having regard to the general programme for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment and in particular Title IV thereof;
There can be no doubt that what I have been talking about up to the moment is a treaty. The Treaty of Rome is a treaty. But the general programme is not a treaty. The general programme, which is the next stage by which we reach a final decision here, is not a treaty. The general programme says on page 5
Between the time limit shown in paragraph D and the end of the transitional period for occupations listed in Annex IV hereto…".
freedom of establishment shall be created. I do not have Annex IV. I have not been able to find it. We shall therefore

jump a stage. But I shall be able to show that Annex IV, although this is not a treaty, refers to another document which is a treaty. So we pass, as it were, through a non-treaty stage into a third stage, at which stage we are back in a treaty situation. We return to the directive of the Council, in which we find the words
Having regard to Council Directive of 15 October 1963, with a view to carrying out the provisions of the general programme for the abolition of restrictions on the free provision of services in the sphere of cinematography.
We then come to what it is about—and that is an establishment in relation to cinematography. Here we have a general directive, and this is a treaty. The directive also says:
Having regard to…the second Council Directive of 13 May 1965 with a view to carrying out provisions of the general programme for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment and the free provision of services in the sphere of cinematography.
So far, so good. We can at this point reaffirm what we suspected when we looked at a general programme. It sets out ways, in accordance with Title IVE by which the programme of abolition of freedom of establishment in the Common Market for cinematography must be achieved before the end of the transitional period.
So we are beginning to trace it through. There are a lot of "whereases" and so forth, and then we come to the Articles of the general directive. Article 1 says:
Member States shall abolish, for the benefit of the neutral persons and companies or firms referred to in Title 1 of the general programme for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment and the free provision of services, hereinafter called 'beneficiaries', the restrictions referred to in Title III of that programme in respect of access to and the exercise of the occupations referred to in Article 2.
Then come Articles 2 to 8 and at the end it says:
It has been agreed that when the European Communities are enlarged"—
here we come back to the point of the Amendment—
a technical adaptation will be made to the text of Article 4(1) of this Directive which will provide that a solemn declaration will be added to the documents which may replace documentary proof of good repute.
At this stage, we may begin to feel a little lost but if we persevere we can find our way through the mess.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are beginning to be a bit lost. Indeed, I am somewhat mesmerised. Would he care to indicate just when he is coming to the Amendments, and how far what he has been telling us is relevant to them? He and I have found ourselves in similar difficulty on another occasion.

Mr. Jenkins: The other encounter between us, Sir Myer, was on as mall occasion in a room in which we were able to establish a rather more informal relationship than would be appropriate in these wide open spaces. I accept your invitation to make clear the point in relation to the Amendments.
We are having difficulty in precisely defining what constitutes a treaty and what constitutes an international agreement. This is because, in order to discover the intention of the treaty and the Community, one has to follow through a series of documents. My argument is that in order that people should obey the law it is necessary to know what the law is. I am illustrating the great difficulty of knowing what the law is in this case—of knowing what we are taking on board here. But I am about to discover the end of the trail. It chances to be in the Treaty of Accession. On page 65 there is the heading:
Council Directive No. 70/451/EEC of 29 September 1970".
Under that heading, the following is inserted at the end of Article 3(a):
(e) In the United Kingdom:
—the rule that only a company registered in, and the central management and control of whose business is exercised in, the United Kingdom shall be eligible for a payment from the British Film Fund…
What does that mean? One can only find out by referring back to the right of establishment document. On page 197 there are these words:
Member States shall in particular abolish restrictions which…
Among the restrictions to be abolished shall especially be those whose provisions prohibit or limit the establishment of beneficiaries in the following manner…
7.0 p.m.
Does this prohibit in future in the United Kingdom the rule that only a company registered and whose central management and control is exercised in

the United Kingdom shall be eligible for a payment from the British Films Fund? I doubt whether the penny has dropped anywhere in the film industry, if it means that Government support for the industry is abolished or opened so wide as to be ineffective. This is not a piece of simple law which is easily understood, but the consequence, if we follow through what has been decided, is that it is possible to discover that Government support for the British film industry is prejudiced under this law—or is it opened up to such a wide degree that the benefit accruing to British film-makers will be very small indeed?

The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is entirely out of order in discussing the future of the British film industry as a result of our joining the E.E.C.

Mr. Jenkins: I was about to say that it would be improper for me to pursue this matter further at this stage.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member could have saved the Chair from intervening if, instead of saying that he was about to say that, he had said it in the first instance.

Mr. Jenkins: I thought that the illustration I gave was apposite to showing the problem of discovering what Community law is. This is one example of our difficulty. I do not intend to argue the case now, but when we come to Clause 8 I shall elucidate in great detail precisely the consequences of this change for the British film industry.
The only thing that I wish to say now is that the difficulty we had in ascertaining precisely what the intentions of the Community are in this respect, and discovering precisely what they are for the future, seems very frightening. If, as a result of very considerable research, one can discover a line of decision by the Community, leading to a final conclusion which is deleterious for a particular industry, it seems likely that the very imprecision that we complain about may be bringing about equally damaging decisions for other industries which are not yet fully comprehended. For all these reasons, I hope that this series of Amendments will not only be pressed to Divisions but will be carried.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Body: I have done my best to follow the path of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) in and out and round about the labyrinth of these regulations. If the conclusion of the journey is the one which he invites us to believe, he has certainly raised a matter of considerable importance for the industry about which he has spoken so often and so knowledgably. I hope that, if not this evening, certainly at some stage before we reach Clause 8 he will have a fairly definite answer.
I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) is no longer in his place because I wanted to apologise to him for having interrupted so severely when he was giving us what I hope he will not mind my calling a little homily. I was moved to do so because this is the first time that I have breathed a word about the European Communities Bill. Until now I have been wholly and utterly taciturn lest it should be said by anyone nearer to the Government Front Bench than my hon. and learned Friend that those of us who oppose the Bill are causing any undue delay.
When I first read through the Bill my reaction to Clause 1 was probably the same as that of most hon. Members. It did not seem to matter very much. There was no great substance there, so we should get on to Clause 2 and see what that was about. But, having listened to so much of the debate, I think no one can possibly say that Clause 1 is other than central and has terrifying importance for the future of the House. I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull and others who think like him that the House has not wasted any time in trying to highlight the grave importance of this Clause.
There is more than one reason why the definition in this Clause of a treaty is unsatisfactory. Of course we must link Clause 1 with Clause 2, and it is a platitude now to speak of that Clause as being far-reaching. It is so far-reaching that any definition of a treaty should be circumscribed precisely, and that should be done now before it is too late. It must not be left vague nor open-ended I say with respect to those

who drafted Clause 1 that this definition of a treaty debases the word. It opens up the description of a treaty to any kind of international agreement and permits to be called a treaty those things which the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) called "half-creatures". He spoke of the declarations, resolutions and exchanges of letters. The exchange of letters set out in the Treaty of Accession relating to the future of sterling must be an international agreement. There can be hardly any doubt about that. One letter was signed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on behalf of this country. The other letter was signed by representatives accredited to the member countries of the Community.
I say with reluctance when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) is sitting behind me and his experience of contract law goes back many years, that a contract can consist of letters. It can consist of a letter and an acceptance. If those two are married together—the intention to agree must be implied by the exchange of letters, particularly if they are adopted and included in a treaty of accession—obviously there has been as it were a contract between nations and, therefore, there is an international agreement. It seems idle to pursue the argument further although, if my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General when he replies feels otherwise, certainly I for one will have learned a little about the law. I think it was he who said on 8th March that by the Vienna Convention on Treaties an exchange of letters could no doubt constitute a treaty.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Stepney raised in this context the terms or arrangements, whatever we are to call them, now relating to sugar. What was set out in the White Paper published last summer constitutes a moral obligation in two senses. We in this House have a duty to make sure that those countries on whose behalf we have sought to reach an agreement should not be let down.
I refer anyone who doubts that we have a moral obligation to paragraph 112 of the White Paper and to the last paragraph of the communiqué. This is important on the question whether the


Sugar Agreement falls within the definition of a treaty and whether Clause 1 is apt to the agreement. That last paragraph gives us a clue about the obligation:
There was a full discussion of the Community's offer made on sugar after 1974. The British Delegation assured other delegations that the Community's proposals constituted a specific and moral commitment by the enlarged Community, of which the United Kingdom would be a part. The British Government and other Commonwealth Governments participating regard this offer as a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market in the enlarged Community on fair terms for the quantities of sugar covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in respect of ail its existing developing member countries. The developing Commonwealth countries will continue to plan their future on this basis.
Manifestly, there is a moral obligation to the developing Commonwealth countries which are dependent on sugar. As we were told throughout the negotiations that we would not contemplate entry unless we had satisfactory terms for sugar, clearly there is a moral obligation on the British people as well as on the developing countries to make sure that what is set out in that communiqué will be valid in the future.
Those of us who are lawyers, and, indeed, those of us who are not, know that a legal agreement consists of offer plus acceptance. Offer plus acceptance equals agreement. The word "offer" is included in that communiqué. What about the acceptance? What about the reaction in Brussels? Those of us who have been nervous about the future of sugar read with apprehension the Treaty of Accession. We read what was said in that document aboutsugar—or should I say what was not said about sugar?—and compared the protocol relating to the developing Commonwealth countries with the protocol for New Zealand. The terms for the future of New Zealand's dairy products have some guarantee because there is a protocol and, therefore, a treaty as defined by Clause 1. But the countries of the developing Commonwealth have no such protocol, no agreement, no acceptance of offer, to enable them to have any security for the future.
7.15 p.m.
We know what the future development is likely to be. We know that the countries of the developing Commonwealth

listed in Annex V will have the offer of associated status given to them under Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome. It will be for them to accept that offer or reject it. Those of us who have heard the words from Washington know only too well that there will be an overture from Washington to prevent certainly the countries of the Caribbean becoming associated with the E.E.C. No doubt they will be enticed to come to terms with the dollar market. If we are to fulfil our obligations to those countries it is essential for the House to make sure that we safeguard their interests in the future and prevent them from being a pawn between a dollar bloc and a pro-European bloc.
What disturbs me about the Clause and the definition of a treaty is that under Article 238 we know that the Council of Ministers has power to conclude agreements on behalf of the Community with developing Commonwealth countries, and we know that the Council of Ministers must be unanimous. To that extent we have some veto. We know also that the European Parliament must be consulted; that is set out in the Treaty of Rome. But there is no requirement that this House should be consulted, and no requirement that this House should have the opportunity of making sure that those two moral obligations are fulfilled.
On earlier occasions individual member States of the Community have debated and approved agreements enabling other countries to have association. There have been at least four occasions when the legislature of the member States have agreed to association agreements. There were the Convention of Yaoundé in 1963 and the agreements with Greece in 1961, with Turkey in 1963 and with Nigeria in 1966.
As the Bill stands, if we enter the Community this House will not have the same right to explore the terms of the association agreements as has previously been given to all the individual member countries, even Luxembourg. This must be less than satisfactory. For that reason, I cannot support Clause 1 as now phrased, and still less agree to the definition of a treaty which on any grounds must be thoroughly unsatisfactory. I therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General this question. As the Bill is now drafted, on what side of


the fence falls the Lancaster House understanding? With respect to him, I say that to that question there must be a clear and definite answer.

The Chairman: The Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General(Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Solicitor-General(Sir Geoffrey Howe)rose—

Mr. Deakins: On a point of order. I respectfully draw your attention, Sir Robert, to three matters. First, Amendment No. 194, in my name and the names of two of my hon. Friends, is being discussed with Amendment No. 29 but it has not been referred to by any speaker in this debate, and I have not had an opportunity of speaking on it. Second, I have been sitting here ever since the start of the debate hoping to be called to speak on Amendment No. 194. Third, I respectfully suggest that, if the Solicitor-General speaks next, a few minutes might be given to the person in whose name Amendment No. 194 stands.

The Chairman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to give way?

The Solicitor-General: I do not know whether. Sir Robert, you wanted to make a comment on the point of order which was raised.

The Chairman: Not particularly. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to continue?

The Solicitor-General: Yes. I will not respond to the varying degrees of welcome given to me with diminishing degrees of friendship—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. Would you be so kind as to give a ruling on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) on the question whether you will permit him to speak at a later stage?

The Chairman: I did not think the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) was seriously raising that matter as a point of order, although I am sure he was serious about what he meant. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly on the matter, no doubt I will call him after the speech of the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General: Nor will I reply to what was said by the hon. Member

for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) about what comes up on Clause 8.
I begin by seeking to spell out with greater clarity what is meant by the concept of a treaty. Subsection (4) must be read with subsection (2), which lays down what kind of treaty comes within the definition of the provision.
On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I dealt with the matter on 8th March, as set out in the Official Report in c. 1533. It would be possible in circumstances there set out for an invalid inclusion of a treaty within a purported Order in Council to be challenged. Similarly in regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), an attempt to include something as a treaty, something which was manifestly not an international treaty or agreement within subsection (4), could be challenged in the same way.

Mr. Jay: I hate to keep asking the Solicitor-General questions, but he has not answered this one. What is the good of challenging the matter in the courts if the Bill can be produced to show that the Order in Council is conclusive in saying that it is such a treaty?

The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to seem discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but if he will refer to the Official Report of 8th March he will see set out in column 1533 the answer to his question. I cannot go over the ground again.
On the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, on a previous occasion I acknowledged that international agreements are made between people having legal personality in international law. Normally they are written agreements between persons of that kind and are intended to operate in international law. That picks up the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. Obviously, States have a legal personality in that sense. Some international organisations have such a personality, and I instanced some of them on the last occasion.
The series of questions put to me by the right hon. Gentleman about the capacity of State trading corporations and a whole range of other bodies would involve a close analysis of the effects of each organisation and a lecture on each


case, of a range and character which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not welcome.
I come back to the central proposition involving persons having legal personality in international law. This would involve States, certainly some international organisations, and thereafter we would have to lock at each case on its own facts. The justification in including subsection (4) is primarily for the avoidance of doubt. The term "treaty" can be used either in a general sense or in a particular sense. In other words, it can be a term of art applied to a treaty as opposed to a protocol or annex, or it can be a wider term involving that which is conveniently set out in the Vienna Convention and on page 4 of McNair—a written agreement between persons with an international personality.
Subsection (4) makes plain that it is intended to be used in that wider sense to avoid any confusion. It does not involve, as has been suggested, any undesirable extension beyond the normal meaning. It is desirable to make this clear on the face of the Bill so that we may see how each of the various categories of documents comes within the definition.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West asked about the agreement between the Prime Minister and M. Pompidou. The answer is that it would not constitute a treaty unless it was in writing, and even if something is in writing it does not necessarily contain or comprise an international agreement, but it would have to be in writing. If it were written and constituted a treaty, there are obligations under Article 102 of the United Nations Charter to register all treaties and international agreements. In addition, within the provisions of the Bill again it would qualify as a treaty—if need be, specified in the procedure laid down.

Mr. English: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for answering this question; but is he not saying that by importing the phrase "international agreement" into this Bill in a context where it might be brought before a court in this country or an international court, such as the European Court, that court might choose legitimately to follow the general principles of international law? It might take

the view that what was meant was an international agreement, something which is not a treaty and which is not necessarily in writing. In regard to the question of registration, he will recollect that under the old League of Nations a treaty was invalidated if it was not registered under the United Nations Charter. That was carefully left out because of the legal difficulties which it caused between the wars.

The Solicitor-General: I am indicating a number of different provisions which have operated alongside each other and which could qualify as an international agreement or treaty within the terms of the Clause. In the same way, any attempt to declare as an agreement something which was in the form of an exchange of letters and which did not constitute an agreement equally would not come within this provision.
The other half of the subsection makes it clear that any protocol or annex to a treaty is included in the reference to "a treaty", again to avoid a narrow construction being given to the word "treaty". Frequently the terms of a treaty will make clear that the protocols or annexes are included within it, but here that doubt is removed.

Mr. Powell: Did I understand my hon. and learned Friend to say that an agreement is not an international agreement for the purposes of this subsection unless it is registered with the United Nations?

The Solicitor-General: I did not say that. I said that under Article 102 of the United Nations Charter there is an obligation on States to register treaties with the United Nations. However, I did not go along with the second half of the proposition put to me by my right hon. Friend—in other words, as I understand it, it is not linked with an invalidating provision. There is the obligation to register. I asserted that as another indication why an agreement in writing would need to be published and could not be spelt out in a secret document.
I turn to deal with some of the particular kinds of documents which have been referred to. First, I should like to mention declarations and exchanges of letters. They may or may not constitute international agreements. We can exchange letters or make declarations which


do not involve an agreement, but in so far as either of those things constitutes an international agreement it qualifies as an international agreement. One can apply that proposition to some of the examples which have been raised. The exchange of letters which appears on pages 107 to 109, about which there has been some discussion, is referred to in Article 158 of the Treaty of Accession. It will be seen there that annexes I to XI, protocols 1 to 30 and the exchange of letters on monetary questions attached to the Act shall form an integral part thereof, and the exchange of letters is made an integral part and gives rise to obligations in that way. The same is true of the protocols and annexes there listed.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

7.30 p.m.

The exchange itself has been discussed by a number of hon. Members in this debate. The nature of the declaration contained in the exchange of letters was the subject of statements in the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 9th June last year and on the following day by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Both of those statements made clear the conditions attaching to and which emerged from that exchange of letters.

As for future exchanges of letters, which was one of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, if and so far as a future exchange of letters constitutes a matter which gives rise to obligations in international law and thereby constitutes an international agreement, subject to the provisions of subsection (3) if it is an exchange of letters to which this country is a party, that can be a treaty.

Mr. Spearing: When my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) was inquiring about the exchange of letters on the sterling balances, I drew attention to page 124 of Command 4862(1) where there was a declaration by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Herr Scheel concerning the system of fixing Community farm prices in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman recorded his agreement to these statements.
Does the word "agreement" in that sense constitute an international agreement for the purposes of Clause 1(4)?

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come to that in a moment.
I have explained the position on the exchanges of letters. I have explained the position arising from Article 158 on the protocols and annexes as they are set out. The protocols include Nos. 17 and 22 dealing with the important matter of sugar. Those are international agreements. They have been discussed in this House in the course of many debates since last summer, and they are the subject of the discussion in paragraph 112 of the White Paper of last July. The protocols themselves are international agreements as specified.
The statement set out in paragraph 112 is not a treaty. It is a statement of the way in which the people who took part in that conference understood the effect of the protocols. The protocols are subject to the safeguards that we have discussed earlier and that have been discussed in many other debates.
The declarations listed in Part I of the Treaty of Accession are of different kinds and have different status. Their status is set out on page 114 of the Treaty of Accession. The five joint declarations are there set out as adopted by the parties to the Final Act. The joint declarations do not form part of the Treaty of Accession, but they are annexed to the Final Act.
The declarations record in general the intent of the member States or of the institutions of the Community to take action in the future with respect to particular issues or to problems which may arise. They are not intended to constitute international agreements in the strict sense of the word. In addition, there are the two multilateral declarations and four bilateral declarations listed on page 114. These again have the same status as that which I have described already. They amount to statements of intent adopted, taken note of or annexed to the act of accession in the manner set out on page 114.
There are some other instruments about which right hon. and hon. Members have asked me. My right hon. Friend


the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked about the decisions of representatives of Governments sitting in the Council. They are the subject—

Mr. Spearing: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point—

The Solicitor-General: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I have to deal with a number of specific points.
The decisions are the subject of the first sentence of Article No. 3 of the Treaty of Accession, on page 9 of Command 4862, Part 1. The new members accede by this act to the decisions and agreements adopted by the representatives of the Governments of member States meeting in Council. They are referred to specifically in that way.
The matters to which my right hon. Friend referred on page 141—namely, the final communiqué and resolution of the Council—are probably not treaties but are no more than related instruments. The two on page 144 are agreements, and probably international agreements and, therefore, treaties, depending on the status of the organisations there listed.
The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked about the interim period procedure described on page 128. That again is referred to in the Final Act of the instrument of accession on page 114 as a matter of which the parties take note as an arrangement. It subsists and is applicable by definition during the period prior to accession. It would not therefore have been appropriate to include it in the Treaty of Accession itself.
The various points arising on Article 3(3) of the Treaty of Accession on page 10 really make plain the extent to which the new member States are bound or not bound by the previous declarations or resolutions. It makes plain that the new member States are in the same situation as the original member States in respect of declarations or resolutions of, or other statements taken up by, the Council. It is a form of saying that in so far as prior declarations or resolutions have an effect as, for example, indicated in Article 3(1), to that extent the joining member States are in the same position. It is a natural consequence of joining a Community with a history going back 15 or 20 years.

Mr. Shore: It is important to know the subjects with which we are dealing and, so far as they have a history within the Community, whether it is envisaged that there will be further stages in their development. Perhaps I might give two examples. One is the economic union. The other is the regulation in draft seeking to establish a common agricultural policy levy on imported lamb and mutton. That is within this area of future intention. I should like to know how far we are committed by this form of words.

The Solicitor-General: Regulations in draft have not yet achieved any status of being an instrument. Resolutions are also not one of the categories of formal instrument referred to in Article 189 of the E.E.C. Treaty. Whether a resolution constitutes an international agreement depends not on its designation as a resolution but on its substantive content. The status of the particular resolution—I think that it is the one of 22nd March—depends upon its content. Perhaps it may be more conveniently discussed when we come to Amendment No. 180.

Mr. Spearing: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can help me. I may have misheard him. I thought he said that the declarations listed at The bottom of page 114 of Command 4862 were not international agreements for the purposes of subsection (4), despite the fact that in relation to the agreement on fixing community farm prices the word "agreement" is used. If that is so, can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why it says in the Bill
and any protocol or annex to a treaty",
whereas on page 114 it says:
the following declarations have been made and are annexed to this Final Act"?
I should have thought that as the word "annex" was in both they constituted international agreements. I thought I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say that they were not.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has not followed. As I understand it, "annex" is a term of art. Article 158 specifically mentions Annexes I to XI.
Turning to page 114, all that is happening there is that declarations are identified as annexed to the Final Act, but they do not thereby cease to be declarations and


become annexes. Just as a wing may be annexed to my house, it is not an annex of my house; it is still a wing of my house—that is, if I had a house which had a wing, which I have not. Annexes are identified as annexes. Something does not become an annex by being annexed to something else when it is, in fact, a declaration.
The last and perhaps most important point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and by other right hon. and hon. Members was on the status of the Luxembourg statement which has been the subject of a number of references during this and earlier debates. It was read by the right hon. Member for Stepney. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend read it again. The status of the Luxembourg document is clear on its face. It does not become an agreement when it is recording the differing views of the parties merely because it takes the form of a declaration. We have discussed it in our recent debates. I mentioned it in answer to an interjection by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North on 8th March, when I said:
The position of the Luxembourg compromise, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, has been explained many times in this House by my right hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not to be found in the terms of the treaties, but is part of the way in which the Community works and is central to the continued survival of the Community."—[Official Report, 8th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1547.]
It is something—I think that I have had this argument with my right hon. and learned Friend on an earlier occasion—which is an undoubted fact and feature of international life and of life within the Communities.
My right hon. and learned Friend spoke about the undoubted power which was conferred on the institutions by the member States. However, we must have regard to the undoubted power that remains with the member States.
My right hon. and learned Friend reminded the House about this matter on 15th December last year by quoting what had been said by the Leader of the Opposition as long ago as 17th November, 1966. I will not re-weary the Committee by quoting those passages, which are long familiar, save to remind it that the Leader of the Opposition drew atten-

tion to the importance of the Luxembourg compromise and said that it was surely relevant to any assessment of how the constitution really works. I made that plain in c. 1547 the last time we discussed this matter.
I am sorry to come back to this familiar point, but it has been well known and seen for many years in our approach to the way in which the Communities work. I take note of the way that my right hon. and learned Friend advanced his argument, but surely this country, of all others, is not the one which should be insistently bound by the letter and rigid corners of the constitution of any organisation which we are joining. I say "this country, of all others" because we are almost unique in having no written constitution.

Mr. English: That is the point.

The Solicitor-General: Hon. Members are seeking to have the argument both ways. We, of all countries, are entitled to point to the conventions, customs and practices which underlie the way in which an institution works as matters of some substance in this context. That is and has been over the years the reality of the organisation which we are joining.
On that basis, I invite the Committee to say that Amendment No. 29, to leave out subsection (4), certainly would not improve the Bill, that Amendment No. 31, at end add
including declarations and exchanges of letters",
without regard to whether those exchanges or declarations do or do not amount to an international agreement, equally would not improve it, and, similarly, I cannot recommend Amendment No. 194.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Deakins: I am grateful at this late stage—because I know that the Committee wants to move on—to be given an opportunity of explaining the purpose of Amendment No. 194, which the Solicitor-General has so airily rejected, although on what grounds I know not, since he advanced none and no one has so far explained its purpose.
Briefly, the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the Lancaster House Sugar Agreement and the Luxembourg disagreement, both of which have been


mentioned, are defined as treaties under Clause 1(4) and that they thereupon become Community treaties and, even more important, pre-accession treaties to which not only this country but other members of the Community are bound. In the few minutes available to me I wish to advance reasons why the Amendment should be pressed and, indeed, supported by the Committee.

Mr. English: I realise that my hon. Friend is in a great hurry. However, may I ask him to bear in mind that the Solicitor-General did not answer my point—that the Luxembourg disagreement may be invalid in Community law, at least as far as its French interpretation is concerned, which appears to be his interpretation as well? Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider that he may be asking a great deal to include as a treaty a document which has two interpretations, one of which is possibly illegal?

Mr. Deakins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I will not follow him along that path, as it will take me beyond the bounds of the time that I wish to spend on the Amendment. However, I am in favour of doing what is necessary for the law of this country regarding entry into the Community. If subsequently it happens to conflict with Community law, so be it. Let the lawyers fight it out.
I draw attention to the fact, which is probably well known, that neither Protocol 17 nor Protocol 22, in Volume 1 of the treaties—which have a bearing on the sugar issue—mention the Lancaster House Sugar Agreement, which is the rock on which our future relationship with the Commonwealth sugar countries depends. We have entered into not only a moral but a legal obligation—I stress that it is a legal obligation—to go on taking, after 1974, the same quantities of Commonwealth sugar. All that we have done, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has constantly told us since last July, is to write that into the record of the negotiating conference. On 21st July, 1971, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I have written into the record what we accept as the practial meaning of the agreement that we have reached."—[Official Report, 21st July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1590.]

Nothing could be more vague from the point of view of ensuring that there is a Community obligation towards this country. After all, it is not all on one side. Obligations ought to be imposed the other way, as well as upon us. Yet the Community countries have not seen fit to accept that obligation. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that they accept that obligation by our defining in our law the Lancaster House Sugar Agreement as a Community treaty and, what is more important, as a pre-accession treaty.
I now turn to the Luxembourg "disagreement". First, the status of the so-called Luxembourg Convention is in grave doubt. The Solicitor-General has said nothing to allay our fears on this issue. It is not in the ten volumes of Community treaties. That, surely, is a significant omission. Several hours ago, when he was favouring us with his attendances in the debates, the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said that international friendship counted for a great deal—almost as much as international treaties.
He instanced a very bad example—the Entente Cordialeof 1904, which lasted only until 1918. Here we are entering a treaty which is presumed to have no end. So we cannot accept that international friendship and moral obligations should necessarily last beyond the lifetimes of those who enter into them, even assuming that those concerned—the Prime Minister and President Pompidou—do not change their minds, or that other people do not hold their offices. It is a poor state of affairs in international law that the future of this country in relation to one of the most important articles in one of the pre-accession treaties should be regulated by a disagreement which may not even last for the lifetime of hon. Members.
It is also significant that the Luxembourg disagreement is not listed in Part I of Schedule 1, which lists all the more important pre-accession treaties. If this one is not important enough for that I do not know what is. A future Government of this country or any of the other member countries may wish to change their mind about what was or was not agreed at Luxembourg on that famous occasion. A future Government of this country could then change their minds and adopt


the point of view of the majority at the Luxembourg disagreement and agree to the majority view in the Council of Ministers, regardless of what this Government may have told the House when this Bill was passed.
It is therefore essential that we do not give a future Government the right to change their minds on what is and what is not an important national interest—indeed, to abandon all concepts of the idea of important national interest outweighing the legal provisions of the Treaty of Rome. We should prevent any future Government saying, "We have changed our minds and you can do nothing about it because it is all there in the Treaty; the Luxembourg agreement was not a treaty and therefore cannot apply."

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The Solicitor-General, who I am afraid has departed again, replied very shortly to the many detailed questions pressed upon him from both sides of the House. It is important that we should press paricularly for specific answers, if not now then later. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) mentioned this with force when he repeated the important point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) about the sugar agreement, that this was one of those crucial agreements whose status we had to know about because it was a moral obligation.
The possibility is that this may in some sense be an agreement in international law as well as merely a moral obligation. Have the Government faced up to this? Its real status is first as a moral agreement but one cannot ignore the possibility that the loose phraseology in subsection (4) may lead to an international conflict. The Lancaster House Sugar Agreement may have international legal consequences.
It has become clear this evening that the Solicitor-General has been suffering from a cold. Perhaps that explains his absence from the Committee as much as any difficulty with his right hon. and learned Friend, although those difficulties are very real.
The second point which is vital is the status of this so-called Luxembourg compromise. It will not do for the Government when challenged point blank, as they are by Amendment No. 29, to say

what they have said; they must say what difference it would make if subsection (4) were omitted. So far, we have not had an answer on this. These are the two points on which the Opposition demand an answer.
The Solicitor-General has given us a very suave and interesting account of how, in international law, many instruments and ancillary documents would not have the full status of treaties, but would be ancillary and supplemental to treaties. Perhaps the word "ancillary" is not one which readily comes to his lips at the moment, but this is obviously what he was saying to the Committee, and there is considerable force in it.
I do not doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman's claim that the words of subsection (4) were meant to assist and clarify, but to see if they do it might be appropriate to refer first to a well-known textbook on international law, Starke, 5th Edition, which conveniently sets out on page 324 a number of documents which can be covered by the term "treaty". Starke does this on the basis of what is accepted in international law, not what is laid down in the Vienna Convention or any other agreement seeking to define terms. He includes the following titles—convention, protocol, agreement, arrangement, procès-verbal, statute, declaration, modus vivendi, exchange of notes or letters, final act, general act. This is a wide range. My right hon. Friend put his finger on the correct word when he said that subsection (4) contained a "rag-bag" of titles. This quotation from Starke confirms that.
There are one or two things which are not included in the list given by Starke and which could well be included—for example, "annex", which appears in subsection (4). Why, of many ancillary instruments which could be used to eke out the contents of an international agreement with the status of a treaty, have the words "protocol" and "annex" been picked out of all the candidates for selection?
Why, in particular, have these two been selected when the list of ancillary documents appended to Command 4862, Part I, contains a tremendous rag-bag, including annexes, internal agreements, decisions and, in the heading on page 137, "Community Treaties and Related Instruments"? So we add to the rag-bag of


Starke at least internal agreements, decisions and related instruments.
When we have so many terms as this—not invented for this debate but arising out of international law or the bundle of treaties with which we are dealing—surely we need more guidance than subsection (4). Or else would it perhaps be better not to have any guidance at all but to leave matters as they stand, so that one goes to the general rag-bag of international law and finds out as best one can? The Government have fallen between the two stools of neither assisting us by giving a relevant list of agreements and supplementary agreements nor referring us to the international legal position as it stands.
8.0 p.m.
Are the Government really saying that the internal agreements so-called mentioned in Part I of Cmnd. 4862 are to have the status of international agreements or of documents or agreements supplementary to international agreements? On the face of it, they are excluded, but surely an internal agreement is an odd thing to regard as being supplemental to an international agreement, or perhaps even of the status of an international agreement by itself.
I could pursue this matter in detail, but I hope that the illustration I have given and the two pressing points I have made about the sugar agreement and the Luxembourg compromise and their status are sufficient for the time being.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) pressed in this and previous discussions the question whether the Government are satisfied that the position of oral agreements is adequately dealt with by subsection (4). This cannot be laughed off or brushed aside by a reference to Article 102 of the United Nations Charter, the terms of which are mandatory and require that
every treaty, every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations…shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.
These terms are wide and mandatory, and we, as a member of the United Nations of good standing, are presumably under an obligation to fulfil this requirement.
presumably the Government have faced up to this. I will not embarrass them by asking if they have done so in relation to this Measure. Can they at least tell us the practice of the Community in this matter? How many of the Community's treaties and supplementary documents have been registered in accordance with that Article 102?
Oral agreements would obviously be difficult to register with the United Nations. Presumably that is why the Solicitor-General mentioned this aspect only in passing; but I must press him on it. He knows as well as I do that there have been famous oral international agreements which have had significant consequences. We think, for example, of the I hlen Declaration, which figured largely in the East Greenland case of 1933.
That arose out of an informal agreement—one might call it a triangular informal agreement—between Denmark, Norway and the United States, but none of it was committed to writing. The oral agreement arose at the time of the then peace conference. It was on the basis that Denmark would raise no objection to Norway's claim to Spitzbergen, on the understanding that the Danish West Indies would go to the United States and that, in turn, the United States would have no objection to Denmark claiming sovereignty over the whole of Greenland.
This triangular arrangement, which involved three parties, each transacting an oral agreement with one of the others, but not with the third, was, nevertheless, held to be a binding agreement. What have the Government done to ensure that subsection (4) will take cognisance of such a case? It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that secret oral agreements have been or could be reached, as my hon. Friends have made clear.
Are we to discover 10 years from now that agreements made before or after the Treaty of Accession have been held to constitute oral agreements, have been acted on and are, therefore, binding in international law? Will these come under subsection (4)? I see no words to exclude them and nothing to stop the procedure in subsection (3) from being used not merely for future treaties, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out, but even to exhume past treaties.
The Government may seek to declare that an agreement thought to be an informal one not worth including at treaty level is worthy of inclusion at that level. They may then wish to exhume it and raise it to that level under subsection (3). There is no precision in this provision.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is unlikely that any secret verbal agreements between Heads of State and ourselves, if they existed, would have either increased or diminished validity because of this legislation?

Mr. Murray: Be that as it may, I am not greatly worried by that. I am concerned about the mechanism of this Bill which could be used to assist the setting up as an agreement of importance something which may have been treated as a matter of unimportance and made years ago.
Another oral agreement which I use as an illustration of what I have in mind was reached at the Geneva Conference in 1954 between Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, the British Chargé ďAffaires in Peking, and the Chinese delegation, though that delegation's presence was unconnected with British interests. As a result of an oral agreement that was reached on that occasion, a United Kingdom consular office was opened in Shanghai. These are examples of oral agreements which have been very much alive in the sphere of international law.
The Solicitor-General has given some guidance about the kind of parties who the Government contemplate will be parties to international agreements under subsection (4)—in other words, the international persons who will be involved. Nevertheless, he has not answered the question we really want answered, and that is the motivation behind this provision; we want to know what kinds of international person are in contemplation.
We are not asking for an exhaustive list of the bodies which enjoy legal international personality and might be involved in this subsection. We simply want to know the purpose of the type of treaty with which we are dealing in Clause 1. Is the international personality problem connected perhaps with the question of co-signatories under the notorious passage in subsection (2) to which many hon. Members have referred?
We still do not know what sort of arrangements will form the basis of Community treaties to which the United Kingdom will be a party and a cosignatory as distinct from treaties negotiated by the Commission and concluded by the Council.
I press the Government to say, either now or later in our proceedings, whether this problem of international legal personalities and the question of when member States of the Community sign as co-signatories has or has not a connection with the fact that members of the Warsaw Pact do not recognise the legal personality of the Communities or of their organs and institutions. This question has been posed many times, but we have not received a clear answer. That is the essence of the uncertainty which surrounds this aspect of the Clause.
Finally, looking at Clause 1, and considering how it is supposed to operate in the context of the Bill as a whole, many of us have been wondering whether subsection (4) is yet another Alice-in-Wonderland type of provision, meaning what the Government want it to mean, at least until they change their mind; meaning what they want it to mean for the purposes of one debate and meaning something quite different when one comes to another debate when other problems are before the Committee.
Is the Luxembourg compromise really to be the kind of model that we are to think of in this connection? The Government are, I think, in a dilemma here, because if the Luxembourg compromise is not part of this infinite portfolio of treaties which seems to be envisaged in Clause 1, then the Government have been misleading the House when they have referred repeatedly in the debates about the Economic Community to the importance of this practical arrangement. If it is a practical arrangement that has importance, there is no escaping the conclusion that it is supplementary to treaties within the meaning of subsection(4). If on the other hand it is a matter of no importance and does not belong to subsection (4), the Government must be convicted of misleading the House on this whole matter, a matter of very great importance.
It is important to remember, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney


and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) both pointed out, that early in our deliberations on the Communities we were told time and again about this magic carpet, this conjuror's hat, the Luxembourg compromise under which the vital national interest of any member State could be protected. There is no escaping the reference in paragraph 29 of the White Paper of July, 1971, where these words appear:
On a question where a Government considers that its vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decision should be unanimous".
This is right at the heart of the propaganda which the House and the country were given on the basis of an attempt to convince the people of this country that it was in their interests to enter the Community.
On a question where a Government considers that its vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decision should be unanimous".
Let us see what is established. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East was quite right in saying that one has to find a consensus before there is complete agreement. Let us see what is the extent of agreement on the Luxembourg compromise. I think that whatever agreement there is must be contained in Section 1 of the recorded minutes, dealing with majority voting procedure, which reads:
Where in case of decisions which may be taken by majority vote on a proposal of the Commission, very important interests of one or more partners are at stake, the members of the Council will endeavour, within a

reasonable time, to reach solutions which can be adopted by all the members of the Council while respecting their mutual interests and those of the Community, in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty."

Article 2 refers to the desire of members for harmonious development. It is tolerably clear that something can be spelled out, I should have thought, saying what the agreement is. It is a very limited agreement, that the members will endeavour within a reasonable time to reach solutions which can be adopted by all the members of the Council: but that is a very far cry from the conjuror's hat of paragraph 29 of the White Paper.

8.15 p.m.

Of course, the Government are not talking very much nowadays about the Luxembourg compromise, perhaps because they have seen the force of the criticism pressed upon them in connection with Clause 1. They have now turned to a different conjuror's hat, that of the ad hoc committee. I suspect that we shall be with the ad hoc committee for a while, and then, suddenly, we shall discover that that magic carpet is not very adequate and we shall get another gimmick to prevent our discovering what is contained in this Bill by way of contraband in the containers coming to us from Brussels.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 211. Noes 185.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[8.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter


Astor, John
Chapman, Sydney
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Humphrey
Churchill, W. S.
Fell, Anthony


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Batsford, Brian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fidler, Michael




Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cockeram, Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Benyon, W.
Cooke, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biggs-Davison, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fortescue, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Fox, Marcus


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Gibson-Watt, David


Bowden, Andrew
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Curran, Charles
Goodhew, Victor


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Gorst, John


Bryan, Paul
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gower, Raymond


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dykes, Hugh
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)




Gray, Hamish
McMaster, Stanley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Green, Alan
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Rost, Peter


Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maddan, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil
Scott, Nicholas


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mather, Carol
Sharples, Richard


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael(Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Soref, Harold


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Speed, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire.W)
Spence, John


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Havers, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie
stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley
Temple, John M.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


James, David
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Osborn, John
Tilney, John


Jessel, Toby
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Waddington, David


Kilfedder, James
Parkinson, Cecil
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kimball, Marcus
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Percival, Ian
Wall, Patrick


Kinsey, J. R.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walters, Dennis


Kirk, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Ward, Dame Irene


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pounder, Rafton
Warren, Kenneth


Knox, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lane, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wiggin, Jerry


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Redmond, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Luce, R. N.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey



McCrindle, R. A.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashley, Jack
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamling, William


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph


Baxter, William
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bidwell, Sydney
Delargy, H. J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Bishop, E. S.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hooson, Emlyn


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dempsey, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Booth, Albert
Doig, Peter
Huckfield, Leslie


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)



English, Michael
Hunter, Adam


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Fred
Janner, Greville


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ewing, Harry
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
John, Brynmor


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Michael
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Concannon, J. D.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Jones,Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gourlay, Harry
Judd, Frank


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Kaufman, Gerald







Kelley, Richard
Orbach, Maurice
Small, William


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Stanley
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Kinnock, Neil
Oswald, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Paget, R. T.
Steel, David


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pardoe, John
Strang, Gavin


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Swain, Thomas


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Taverne, Dick


McBride, Neil
Pendry, Tom
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


McCann, John
Pentland, Norman
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McCartney, Hugh
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


McElhone, Frank
Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tomney, Frank


Mackie, John
Rankin, John
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Edwin


Marks, Kenneth
Richard, Ivor
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Wallace, George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Watkins, David


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Weitzman, David


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Wellbeloved, James


Mendelson, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Millan, Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Milne, Edward
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Woof, Robert


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)



Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Murray, Ronald King
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


O'Malley, Brian
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John Golding.


Oram, Bert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 181, Noes 208.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[8.26 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor


Allen, Scholefield
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Baxter, William
Evans, Fred
Judd, Frank


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ewing, Harry
Kaufman, Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kerr, Russell


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lamond, James


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foot, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Garrett, W. E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lomas, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McBride, Neil


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McCann, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney, Hugh


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McElhone, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Hamling, William
Mackenzie, Gregor


Coleman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Huckfield, Leslie
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mellish. Rt. Hn. Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mendelson, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Greville
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampyton, Itchen)


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Murray, Ronald King




O'Malley, Brian
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Thomas, Rt. Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Oram, Bert
Roper, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Orbach, Maurice
Rose, Paul B.
Tinn, James


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Tomney, Frank


Oswald, Thomas
Sandelson, Neville
Urwin, T. W.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Varley, Eric G.


Paget, R. T.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wallace, George


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Silverman, Julius
Weitzman, David


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Pendry, Tom
Small, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pentland, Norman
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Prescott, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Woof, Robert


Rankin, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)



Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. John Golding and


Richard, Ivor
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Ernest Armstrong


Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Taverne, Dick





NOES


Adley, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Astor, John
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Atkins, Humphrey
Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Grieve, Percy
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
More, Jasper


Benyon, W.
Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Blaker, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles


Body, Richard
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar


Boscawen, Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Airey


Bowden, Andrew
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bryan, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Osborn, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Pardoe, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Parkinson, Cecil


Churchill, W. S.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peel, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clegg, Walter
James, David
Pink, R. Bonner


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Redmond, Robert


Critchley, Julian

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crouch, David
Kimbal, Marcus
Rees, peter (Dover)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Curran, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rost, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fidler, Michael
Loveridge, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Luce, R. N.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Sharples, Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, R. A.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh&amp; Whitby)


Fortescue, Tim
McLaren, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Fox, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Skeet, T H. H.


Fry, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Soref, Harold


Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Spence, John


Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin
Sproat, Iain







Stainton, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wilkinson, John


Steel, David
Tilney, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Waddington, David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walters, Dennis
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Ward, Dame Irene



Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Temple, John M.
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas

Question accordingly negatived.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, leave out 'includes' and insert 'means'.

The First Deputy Chairman: It would be for the convenience of the Committee to take with Amendment No. 148 Amendment No. 149 in page 2, line 22, after 'agreement', insert
'other than one relating to defence'.
and Amendment No. 187, in line 22, after 'agreement', insert
'other than one relating to economic or monetary union or defence".

Mr. Healey: I shall concentrate on Amendment No. 149. You will realise, Miss Harvie Anderson, the difficulties created by mixing defence with monetary union. I imagine that other hon. Members will be raising matters germane to the other Amendments later.
The effect of the Clause is to commit the House to a totally inadequate procedure for considering and approving any proposals to enlarge the Community to cover matters of defence. The purpose of Amendment No. 149 is to liberate the House and the Government from the restrictions imposed by the Clause.
There is no reference to defence in the Rome Treaty; the word does not appear in the 200-odd pages of the treaty, which sets up an Economic Community. There had been an earlier attempt to set up a defence community, but that collapsed four years before the Economic Community was set up, because the French Parliament exercised its right to defeat the proposal as put by the French Government. The French Parliament was able, on that occasion, to spend 2½ years in detailed debate and discussion of the proposals for a defence community before finally deciding to pass to other matters.
Our Amendment seeks to clarify a point that remains obscure after a fortnight's serious debate. The question on

which I should like the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to clarify our minds is this: suppose the Common Market decided to broaden its activities into military matters, as it has already in foreign policy by acceptance of the D'Avignon proposals; suppose, for example, it decided to assert a rôle in the formulation of defence policy, as the Council of Ministers is already asserting a rôle in the formulation of foreign policy; or suppose—even more important—that it decided, by amending or adding to the Rome Treaty, to set itself up as a defence community as well as an economic community, by a very extensive addition to the treaty, perhaps of 100 clauses or so, like the original treaty for a European defence community. Are we right in believing that the Bill as drafted would require the Government simply to seek the approval of the House to such a step by an affirmative Resolution to an Order in Council, so that a matter of this staggering importance would be decided by 1½ hours' debate at the end of a parliamentary day, or perhaps a few hours longer if the proposals which had been made in procedural committee were adopted, the debate being severely restricted by the rules of order?
Would it be the case, as our reading of the Bill makes us believe, that once such a procedure had been gone through—once the scope of the Community had been thus enlarged—it might well be possible for the Community collectively to make treaties with a third party on defence matters, or to extend the scope of its activities in defence matters, with no reference to this or any other Parliament, on the ground that that was a consequential development of a Community principle already accepted according to the rules laid down, and that the new developments thus carried through were carried through by the Community collectively without involving separate decision by the member Governments?
If that is the case—and nothing said by Ministers in the past week suggests that it is not—I cannot believe that the Government intend to compel the House to consent to changes in the whole scope and range of the Community's activity of such tremendous importance with so little discussion and consideration permitted. Whatever the Government intend, I cannot believe that the House as a whole could agree to such a procedure. There is no obligation on the Government as a result of the Rome Treaty, or any of the other treaties referred to in the Bill, to seek parliamentary approval of that type of development by this procedure.
I was very impressed by the words used by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in the debate yesterday, and I will quote from yesterday's Hansard. He said:
There is nothing in the bargain which has been struck by my right hon. and learned Friend which requires us to abridge our normal parliamentary procedures for the purpose of treaties which are outside the parameters or perimeters, or whatever it is, of the Community treaties. It is only there that Clause 1(3)B arises. By definition, it is only wholly new treaties not within these parameters or perimeters at all. For that purpose, nothing in the bargain requires us to pay this price.
And he added:
I believe in a commercial approach: nothing for nothing and precious little for tuppence. Why should we be required to pay this price if we do not have to pay it, for it is, as I understand it, a surrender of parliamentary power?"—[Official Report, 14th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 416.]
This point was put with force by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen and it received no reply whatever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he sought to reply in the early hours of this morning. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this question: is there anything whatever laid down in any of the treaties to which we are now asked to accede which requires Her Majesty's Government to bind Parliament in Britain to this specific procedure for accession to new treaties which are concluded by the Community after our accession? Indeed, is there any other Parliament in the Community which has this procedure of accepting Orders in Council by affirmative Resolution? I suggest that there is not. I suggest that if they wish to do so Her Majesty's Government are completely free, so far as

the Community is concerned, to enable Parliament to approve new treaties either by the passage of a Bill through the normal legislative procedure or, as has sometimes been the case, through a two- or three-day debate on a Motion to approve a treaty. Is there anything in the Community procedure as laid down for its members which compels the British Government to bind the British Parliament to this procedure in this field?

Mr. Rippon: I am very glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to our debates. If he had been here he would have heard that we have had quite exhaustive discussions about this. Of course the Government of the day are not bound to use the affirmative Resolution Order in Council procedure. They could proceed by Act of Parliament. There have been discussions as to whether we could have a formula whereby a distinction could be drawn between minor matters and major matters; the latter could possibly be dealt with by Act of Parliament, but this would not be appropriate for defence treaties. There could always be a three-day debate in the hypothetical circumstances of this essentially economic Community becoming a defence Community.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I have read with care everything that he and other hon. Gentlemen opposite have said in these debates. But the point still remains that, as drafted, the Clause which we seek to amend says only that:
a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January, 1972, other than a pre-accession treaty to which the United Kingdom accedes on terms settled on or before that date, shall not be so regarded
—this is mandatory, not permissive—
unless it is so specified, nor be so specified unless a draft of the Order in Council has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
The wording of the Clause that we seek to amend is quite specific. It lays down a procedure, and one procedure only, which is a condition for acceptance by this House of any post-accession treaties. It is perfectly true that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and, on occasion, the Solicitor-General and other hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench, have sought to persuade the House that, for example, it would be open to the House to reject an Order in Council


which was submitted for affirmative Resolution and, by some machinery not so far explained, to compel the Government to put the same issue in terms of a Bill requiring legislative assent.
8.45 p.m.
It was even stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself last night that the ad hoc committee, whose composition and functions have not yet been determined, should itself decide that Parliament should approve a post-accession treaty by a legislative process rather than by the process laid down in this Bill. But the words of the Bill are explicit and it is only to them that I can address my remarks. If he is really serious about his suggestion, let him amend the Clause so that it lays down those procedures and makes them completely available to the House and the Government in such cases. He has not chosen to amend the Clause. But let him at least exclude the defence or military treaties relating to the Community from these procedures, because I cannot believe that if it fully studied the matter this House would agree to be bound in the way that it is bound by the Clause as drafted in the all-important matter of military affairs.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire): While I am diametrically opposed to going into Europe, I am most interested in the point that my right hon. Friend has raised about defence and military treaties. It is not my recollection that it has been the practice to put before the Housed fence treaties. I am mindful of the Nassau Agreement on the question of building nuclear submarines, and so forth. The Labour Party agreed as a policy statement that we would renegotiate that agreement, but as far as I recall it was never renegotiated or presented to the House. While, as I say, I am diametrically opposed to going into Europe, I should like my right hon. Friend to explain the difference between defence agreements which may have been entered into in the past and defence agreements which may be entered into by European Governments in future.

Mr. Healey: I make the distinction clear. Normal military treaties are not secret. The Polaris agreement was published in a Command Paper available to Parliament and the public, and it was

debated in the House on a Motion to approve it. The same was true of the S.E.A.T.O., Paris and N.A.T.O. treaties. It is possible that the E.E.C. might wish to develop a completely different type of military treaty, more along the lines of the European Defence Community Treaty, to which it was never agreed by Her Majesty's Government that Britain should be a party. In the case of such a treaty, which would require a total revolution in the organisation of the forces of the Crown—in their command structure and in the nature of their equipment and training, and so on—I suggest that it would be impossible to give effect to it without a prolonged legislative process, as was the case in all the Parliaments of the prospective members of the E.D.C. in the early 1950s.
As I pointed out earlier, the French Parliament continually discussed the E.D.C. Treaty from February, 1952, until it finally rejected it in August, 1954. But under the procedures laid down in this Clause by the Government, such consideration would be denied to the House if such a treaty were put to it as an annex to the Treaty of Rome. That is precisely the point that I am seeking to make.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North): Would this mean, therefore, that conscription could be introduced on the basis of one-and-a-half hours' debate on an affirmative Resolution?

Mr. Healey: The Community might decide to constitute itself as having defence as well as economic responsibilities—and let us recall that it has already decided, in addition to the Rome Treaty, to give itself certain political responsibilities in foreign affairs, through the D'Avignon Committee and through the discussions in the Council of Ministers. It might well decide to operate a uniform system of military service amongst all its members, as, for example, it has decided to operate a uniform system of taxation in the value-added tax amongst its members.
As I understand the Bill as drafted, if the Council of Ministers had agreed to such a decision and it flowed from some amendment to the treaty which allowed the European Economic Community to have functions in the defence field, one


could well imagine a situation in which not only would this not get a full parliamentary debate in Britain but might not even be subjected to the procedure of approval by affirmative Resolution and Order in Council. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to clarify this point. It might be possible for lawyers to regard such a decision as consequential on a decision in principle which had gone through the procedure laid down in Clause l(3)(b). In that case, we might find ourselves committed to a twelve-month period of military service with no discussion whatever in the House.
Any constitutional lawyer could draft a mock Bill which would enable the Government to give effect to such a decision without discussion in Parliament, provided that the earlier Bill—which had had only an hour-and-a-half or a five-hours' discussion under the affirmative Resolution procedure—was held to constitute the framework for such a decision, probably as a consequence of the powers given to the Council of Ministers.
I could be wrong about this. I must confess that the more I have read the debates the more confused I have become about the Government's confusion on these matters. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer this specific point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) for raising it.
I think that the whole Committee will agree that defence is a matter of unique importance. It concerns the very survival of the nation and, if improperly handled, can affect the survival of the human race. Of course there are a great variety of views about the nature of the defence problem and the right way to handle it, but I think that most hon. Members, and most of those in all but one of the Community Parliaments, believe that their security depends at present on a close alliance between Western Europe and North America which goes beyond a juridical commitment such as a conventional treaty of the past, and which is given credibility by the integration, under a single command, of American and European forces on the land, in the seas and in the skies of Europe. Anything that weakens this military link weakens our common security.
We on this side of the Committee—and, I hope, hon. Members opposite—look forward to a new system of security based on co-operation between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact in the control and reduction of forces in Europe. We still hope that negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions between the alliances may start, and will be followed by a European security conference. I go further. I believe and have often argued, from the benches opposite, that closer co-operation in defence among the European members of N.A.T.O. is a good thing. That is why I started the so-called Eurogroup in 1968, which the present Government are continuing, and developed joint projects in aerospace and other fields with Germany, Italy, France and other European countries.
I have always believed that this type of defence co-operation among European countries must be within the framework of N.A.T.O. and must be carried out in ways which favour rather than discourage the chances of co-operation in the longer term with Eastern Europe on arms control and disarmament. Indeed, the Eurogroup, interestingly enough, far from being based on the E.E.C., consisted of a number of European members of N.A.T.O.—some of whom are not even applying for membership of the E.E.C.—but excluded one of the major present members of the E.E.C, namely, France. As I pointed out in an earlier debate, the French Government, by their own will, decided to sit behind the door of the room in which the other European members of N.A.T.O. were discussing defence co-operation.
Those who favour, as I do, closer co-operation among the European members of N.A.T.O. in defence are not thereby committed to saying that such co-operation must or can only be carried out through the E.E.C. I believe that there are some disadvantages and even dangers in seeking to enlarge the E.E.C. so as to assume military security functions.

Mr. J. T. Price: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not forget that the only point of contact we had with the Six prior to our application to enter the Community was through Western European Union. We have always been identified as a seventh partner within the original concept of Western European


Union. W.E.U. had a defence committee on which I served at one time as a humble member. To complete the picture, we should admit that we are identified to that extent, although I see the force of the arguments of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am well aware of the sterling work he did on the Western European Union Military Committee in considering these questions.
The point that I am seeking to make is that closer military co-operation between Britain and European countries does not depend upon giving the E.E.C. military functions. Indeed, as I shall seek to show, it might well be seriously endangered by any attempt to give it military functions, just as—if I may use an analogy—our relations with countries outside Europe would be seriously damaged if we attempted to give N.A.T.O. functions in international aid, which is a suggestion that has sometimes been made.
The reasons why the E.E.C. is not a suitable instrument for European defence co-operation are several. First, the agricultural and trading policies of the Community are already beginning to threaten the military link between America and Western Europe, as Senator Connally has pointed out and as has been pointed out by Mr. Peterson, the new American Secretary for Trade, and Mr. Eberle, the negotiator with the Community on behalf of the United States. We have already been given warning by the American Administration that unless there are radical changes in the common agricultural policy of the Community, America may be compelled to reduce her military commitment in Europe or, alternatively, to ask the European countries to make a far bigger financial contribution towards the cost of stationing American troops in Europe.
Secondly, to use the E.E.C. as the basis of European defence co-operation would mean excluding not only America and Canada but also some important European countries, members of N.A.T.O., which are not and may not become members of the Community. That applies already to the countries on the Mediterranean fringes of N.A.T.O.—Greece,

Turkey and Portugal. But nobody can be certain, given the development of opinion in Norway and Denmark, that Norway and Denmark in the end, after their referenda, will be able to join the E.E.C. even if their Governments so wish. In that case to seek to build European defence co-operation in the Community would mean excluding all the countries, except Italy, on the flanks of N.A.T.O. both North and South. I have some personal experience of the damage which can flow from any attempt to build the European defence community with anything less than the totality of the European members of the Alliance which are prepared to join in such co-operation.
9.0 p.m.
I am well aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary have expressed a different view. They have committed themselves in many speeches to trying to develop the enlarged Community as a defence community no less than an economic and also, they say, a political community. The Chancellor of the Duchy shakes his head. Perhaps he will tell me why he disagrees and then perhaps I can swap quotations with him.

Mr. Rippon: What has been made clear throughout is that at no point have defence considerations come into the negotiations about joining the Community. The right hon. Gentleman can search right through the documents without finding any reference to defence.

Mr. Healey: The righ hon. and learned Gentleman is far too intelligent to have mistaken what I am saying. I am not saying that the Community treaties, as drafted, commit us to defence. I am saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence have repeatedly stated that in their view the enlarged Community would and should in the longer run seek to develop defence functions. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy will not deny it. What we are discussing in this Amendment is nothing to do with the treaties pre-accession. We are discussing what might happen if it was decided by the Community, under urging from the British Government, to give the Community functions in defence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be well aware that we are particularly concerned about the Prime Minister's view, which he has stated on many occasions, that in the enlarged Community at some stage the British and French nuclear forces should be combined "in trust for Europe"—to use the phrase the right hon. Gentleman used in his Godkin lectures—as the basis for what is often described as a European deterrent. The last statement of any length by the Prime Minister on this matter was in an article in the American journal Foreign Affairs in 1969, in which he wrote:
It is now three years since I proposed the idea of a joint Anglo-French nuclear deterrent which could be held in trust for Europe.
He went on:
I have been glad to notice that similar suggestions have now bzen made by Herr Strauss"—
this referred to a German Christian Socialist, a politician who is now in opposition—
and hinted at by the new French Government.
He was referring, of course, to the Government of President Pompidou.
Ever since the Prime Minister when in Opposition put forward the idea of an Anglo-French deterrent, I have repeatedly asked him whether he believes this deterrent should be inside or outside N.A.T.O. He has consistently refused to reply. I well recall an occasion six years ago when he was sitting on the Opposition side of this House, having returned from Harvard after giving the Godkin lectures. He then sat mum in the face of repeated requests to say something on this subject.
The Chancellor of the Duchy said in Paris in June, 1971, that once Britain joined the Common Market
…the whole setting for defence co-operation and co-ordination between her and the Six will be transformed.
He then said:
…in the future as the unity of Europe spreads and deepens, defence will also have to be included in the same framework of unity.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman affected to misunderstand me and pointed out that there was nothing in the treaties to commit us to defence. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman shake his head? Does he deny that I am quoting him accurately?

Mr. Rippon: The fact that defence is a part of political unity is one which the right hon. Gentleman used to advocate passionately right across Europe. But it has nothing to do with the treaties that we are discussing. For these hypothetical considerations to arise, one would require major amendment of the treaties, and one would have to bring matters forward in a different way, as one does in regard to all defence treaties and agreements.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interjection. I do not know whether he has been awake for the last half-hour. If he has been, he will know that we are discussing precisely what may happen in the future and how the House will handle proposals that the Community should be extended or enlarged so as to cover defence, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself suggested it might do in the question to which I have referred.
When the Minister of State for Defence was asked the specific question whether nuclear deals with France are or will be contemplated outside the framework of N.A.T.O., he dodged the question. The nearest that we ever got to a reply was from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary who, when asked on 20th July, 1970, about Anglo-French nuclear co-operation, said that the French Government had not yet expressed their view and went on:
There could be nuclear arrangements complementary to the N.A.T.O. Alliance, if necessary."—[Official Report, 20th July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 23.]
In other words, he looked forward to the possibility of a nuclear arrangement with France which was not inside N.A.T.O. but was "complementary" to N.A.T.O.
I know that some right hon. and hon. Members will disagree with me, but I suggest that it would be deeply dangerous to N.A.T.O. and to the defence relationship between Europe and the United States if two or three European countries were to seek to build a nuclear deterrent outside the integrated command structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It would require us to ask the United States to revise the MacMahon Act, and I have not yet met any American congressman or


senator who believes that Congress would agree so to do.
What is certain is that even if the American Administration acceded to such a request it would mean the sudden and final end to the co-operation in nuclear weapons and intelligence between Britain and the United States which has been one of our major defence assets for the last quarter of a century.
It is also important to recognise that such a suggestion is quite unacceptable even to the other members of the European Economic Community. As we know from many experiences in the past, Italy would demand an equal rôle in such a force with Britain and France. But the really agonising pressures would be imposed on Germany. There are some important German politicians—among them Herr Franz Josef Strauss, whose support the Prime Minister welcomed so greatly—who have always supported a German military nuclear rôle and who would see an Anglo-French deterrent as opening the door to a German finger on the nuclear trigger. There are many more Germans who would say that the opening of this Pandora's Box, the reawakening of this sleeping giant, would impose political strains on the German system which would not only imperil its internal stability but wreck any chance of organising successful co-operation between Germany and her neighbours in Eastern Europe.
Those of us who have experience of talking with Soviet leaders know that one of the very few changes in the international situation which might lead them seriously to contemplate military action against Western Europe is the prospect of German access to nuclear weapons.
These facts are familiar to the Committee. Against the background of these facts the suggestion that we should try to build a military community into the existing Economic Community round an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent, which is held "in trust for Europe" to use the Prime Minister's words, is a prescription for disaster. Yet the Prime Minister continues to hawk his obsession round the capitals of Europe. He admitted in Le Monde recently that he raised this matter with President Pompidou at their meeting at the Elysée a year ago and dropped it

only because President Pompidou told him that the time was not yet ripe. President Pompidou is to meet the Prime Minister at Chequers in three days' time, I wonder whether the time will be any riper at this next meeting.
I hope I have shown that to attempt to give the European Economic Community a rôle in military affairs would at least raise new issues of immense importance to this country, to Europe, and, in my view, to the world. I do not ask the Committee to agree with my view on the issues themselves. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends disagree with me. However, I hope that they agree on the importance of the issues, even if they disagree with me on their substance.
9.15 p.m.
The purpose of Amendment No. 149 is not to commit us to a view on the issues themselves. It does not rule out greater European co-operation on defence—I strongly support this now, as I did in 1968 when I was a Minister. The Amendment does not rule out a military rôle for the European Economic Community—I personally strongly oppose such a rôle, but if the Government accept the Amendment they will not be excluding such a rôle; they will simply be changing the rules that they are laying down for parliamentary consideration of any proposals to change the rôle of the Commission. All that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends insist is that if it is, or if it were in future proposed, to give the European Economic Community a military rôle we should be completely free to choose the appropriate means for discussing it in detail, whether by a full legislative process, if that is appropriate to the particular proposal under consideration, or by a debate on a Motion to approve the treaty or other arrangement which may be made. However, we should not be committed, as we are in the Bill as drafted, hugger-mugger to approve matters of such immense importance simply by a truncated debate under restricted rules of procedure through an affirmative Resolution on an Order in Council.
I appeal very strongly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept the Amendment. If what he says is true, if to give the Community a military rôle


would require an enormous new paraphernalia of treaty which required legislation in the House of Commons, that is all the more reason why he should accept the Amendment. It would not bind his hands. It would unbind his hands so that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends, if they happened to be in office at the time, could act as they thought fit. However, I must tell him that the protection offered by himself and other speakers from the Treasury Bench only last week against the procedures laid down in the Bill seem totally inadequate to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in a scathing passage in his speech yesterday, said that it is the extreme of innocence to imagine that a Government seeking to push an Order in Council through the House in a short debate on a three-line Whip could be persuaded instead to allow a prolonged discussion through a legislative process after they had already committed themselves to seek approval according to the procedures laid down.
As for the ad hoc committee, its composition and function we do not know. They have not been decided, and we do not even know whether the committee will ever be set up. The Opposition have yet to declare their view on this. The committee will presumably be expressing general views with no precise proposals before it. The idea that this can substitute for the detailed consideration of a precise proposal, which is the essence of the function of the House of Commons, is equally ludicrous.
The suggestion that the Minister improvised in a panic in the early hours of last night, that the ad hoc committee should be empowered to decide that the procedure laid down in the Bill should be contradicted or ignored seems to me a very doubtful legal proposition, quite apart from its political reality.
I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment. They have nothing whatever to lose if their intentions are honest and above board. If they insist on leaving their intentions arcane, I hope that hon. Members on both sides will act as eximiously as possible to preserve their rights on this issue, which is vital in the most literal sense of the word.

Mr. Powell: We are discussing with this Amendment and Amendment No. 149—to which the right hon. Gentleman exclusively spoke—Amendment No. 187, which brings economic and monetary development on the part of the E.E.C. into the discussion as well as defence development.
I do not think that in looking forward, even in imagination, to these developments, we can be accused of any unrealism or of conjuring up spectres in order to have something to talk about on Clause 1. These developments have been repeatedly and impressively held out to the House and the country as the real inducements to embark upon the first step which is represented by the Treaty of Accession to the Community. That is true of further stages of economic and monetary union; it is also, if possible, even more true of the development of the Community as a defence community.
I do not know whether the experience of other hon. Members has been the same as mine, but I have found that among members of the public, often belonging to the older generation, who on other grounds are strongly adverse to British membership of the Community, the one argument, the one appeal, which secured a hearing for it was that eventually this would lead to a strengthening of the defences of the United Kingdom.
Indeed, there has been a development in this matter in the arguments which have accompanied the debate on Britain and the European Community over the last 15 years. There has been a crescendo, not uninterrupted but unmistakable. When one remembers the early days in the late 'fifties and the decision taken by the Government of Harold Macmillan in the early 'sixties one recalls that the preponderant argument was not even economic and monetary union but opportunity for trade. The argument which appealed to many—I confess quite frankly that in those days it appealed to me—was that this was more of a free trade area than of an economic Community in the full sense of the term,and that the disadvantages of being excluded from it exceeded the disadvantages of being included in it.
As the years have gone by, not only on the Continent of Europe, in the aspirations and development of the Community itself, but also in the way in which it


has been viewed and commended from this side of the Channel, there has been a great change and development. It is for the sake of growing political unity—the right hon. Member for Leeds, East reminded the Committee of the words used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister after his meeting in Paris last year—that membership has been commended and on the ground not only of the economic gains and advantages but of the enhanced safety that political unity would bring. So we have been asked to envisage a great bloc, increasingly unified politically, which would not only be immensely strong economically but which would be so—I do not want to use harsh terms; I was about to say "as a military power"—I will say instead, immensely strong "for the purposes of defence".
I refer not so much to the strange, and rather unhistorical, argument that political unity in Western Europe would banish the spectre of what is called "civil war" in Western Europe—an expression which displays gross incomprehension of the nature of what Europe and its nations are. Political unity has been commended still more on the ground that the bulwark opposed by Western Europe towards the East would be stronger, if clothed in the form, and erected as the result, of political unification than any alliance could be.
I repeat that as I go about the country, speaking and arguing on this subject, I find that this is, for many people, the key argument, even the be-all and end-all. I notice, too, in the speeches of the occupants of the Treasury Bench, that as the months have gone by—perhaps as the economic arguments have been subjected to more and more searching examination—the emphasis on what is called the political aspect as opposed to the economic has constantly increased.

Mr. W. Baxter: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Treaty of Rome has not been altered since the time, to which he referred, when he supported its implications. There were at that time political as well as economic implications. At what stage and on what basis did he change his view and become anti-E.E.C.?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question and before he leaves the interesting historical

comparison on which he is engaged, may I ask him to recall that in the years 1957–60 Mr. Macmillan and other Conservative Ministers of the Government in which my right hon. Friend and I had the privilege to serve said that while they would favour a free trade area basis they rejected the supra-national implications of the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Powell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for recalling that.
In answer to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). I am perfectly prepared to say—I have never declined to say—that in retrospect one's hopes that, in the early stages of this new grouping, Britain might be able to make light of what then seemed to many of us political trappings and political idealism, and make the Community much more a free trade area than an economic unit, have been disproved by the passage of time.

Mr. Rippon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he did not regard them as having been disproved as late as 1968?

Mr. Powell: I will not agree with that. Nor will I apologise for having taken the view, as a colleague of my right hon. and learned Friend and others in 1967, that if the Administration of the party opposite wanted to renew the experiment which had broken down in 1963, it did not lie in our mouths to object. I am quite prepared to agree that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and others have been more consistent and more far-sighted. There is no dispute about that; and indeed nothing is to be gained in admissions or accusations about the past in examining the logical case for these Amendments—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire is just going to thresh that straw again, I cannot give way. [Interruption.]

Mr. W. Baxter: I do not want to go over all that. I appreciate very much that there was a change in circumstances and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being honest and open on the question, but I am quite naturally interested in the issue, as many in the country are Is it the defence aspect or the political aspect?

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Gentleman is interested, perhaps he will keep quiet and listen. I return immediately to the issue


of the development of the political unity of Europe in a defence sense, a defence context. There is no doubt that a politically unified Europe, if it could be conceived and realised, would present an advance upon the security afforded by a mere alliance. I do not dispute that a single military power comprising 250 million human beings, commanding all the resources in the area of Western Europe, would be militarily more powerful and effective than would be the co-operation of those nations in the form of an alliance; but the price of that enhancement of security, if it be an enhancement, which lies between alliance and unity is that there must be a single policy, effective and imposed upon all parts of that great unit in the same sense as the defence policy of the United Kingdom is accepted by and imposed upon the whole of the United Kingdom. No doubt, I repeat, more power and security is to be had thus, but only at the price—and my right hon. Friends cannot dispute this—of political unification in the genuine sense of the term. The reflections of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on nuclear deterrence, which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East recalled to the House, only go to confirm this. The notion of a European nuclear deterrent implies a degree of political unification in Europe, a degree of self-identification by all the parts of Europe owning the deterrent, which would go even beyond what is demanded by a defence capacity superior to that of an alliance; for the very essence of a nuclear deterrent is that the world believes, and the potential aggressor believes, that in certain circumstances one would be prepared to take the step which amounts to committing suicide. This is a threat which can only be uttered, a stance which can only be credible, if those on whose behalf it is uttered or taken up are, and are seen to be, a single political unit. Broadly speaking—I think I have used this phrase before in defence debates—it is: one nation, one nuclear deterrent. Therefore, an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent which had the effect of being a European deterrent—we are approaching the previous conclusion along this other line of argument—would imply full-scale, thorough-going political unification.
That is the justification for the right hon. Gentleman saying that the develop-

ment of political unity, the development of the Community into a defence community, would involve at least the same sort of self-implementing, automatically operative decisions and policies as this Bill does in the comparatively narrow sphere of trade and facilitation of commercial intercourse. It is axiomatic that a political unit which is a defence unit, which is not merely an alliance but the thing beyond an alliance, must be capable of acting directly through all its subordinate and component parts. Some such mechanism, therefore, as is comprised in embryo within the scope of this Bill, would be requisite for the development of the Community into a defence community. That is why the right hon. Gentleman is logically justified in saying that such an extension of what is being done here—indeed, the many stages towards it which would have to be taken—ought to be treated as new and decisive steps, to be considered de novo by the House of Commons and the country.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

9.30 p.m.

I turn from political unity in its ultimate defence aspect to political unity in aspects which are much nearer in terms of practicability—economic or monetary union. I see that the Amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself says "economic or monetary union". I think, perhaps, on reflection, the disjunctive word "or" was not correct and the conjunction "and" would have been.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I did not mean to intervene. I do not know whether discussions outside the Chamber should be reproduced here. I was only recalling to my righthon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) that my recollection was that he and I thought that the conjunctive was appropriate for our Amendment and we were overborne by my right hon. Friend who favoured the disjunctive.

Mr. Powell: I am amused to recall what my right hon. and learned Friend mentions; but there is a substantial point in this argument as between "and" and "or". The substantial point, which is of real importance, is that one cannot have economic union, if one means union in any genuine sense, without monetary union, while monetary union, in any


genuine sense, attracts all the other aspects of economic policy; for all the other aspects of economic policy influence the value of our domestic currency and are thus inconsistent with the automatic interconvertibility of domestic currencies, of which monetary union is the alternative expression.
I have in a sense already, by that definition of the proposition, stated the argument for the Amendment; for monetary union, like economic union—view them from whichever aspect one pleases—does imply that the whole range of policy on which separate nations can still go their own ways subject to the pressures and facts of the outside world, would require to be not merelyco-ordinated—it needs much more than co-ordination—but identified to the point at which no disharmony could arise between the different parts of the economy. They would have to be identical in the same sense as economic policy is identical throughout the United Kingdom.
Here again, a political unity which has got to the point of bringing about monetary and economic unification implies a single centre of decision making—a centre which is not consultative, which does not exercise its influence by fits and starts or in separate decisions, but which interfuses the whole and is constantly operating upon the economy of the entire political unit, just as the decisions that my right hon. Friends are taking in the Government of this country are continuously affecting the economy of the United Kingdom.
Such a union would be unthinkable without at least those powers of self-execution for the decisions of the central authority which are, again in embryo, embodied in the Bill. We come to the conclusion therefore that the pattern of the Bill is apt for extension through the subsequent stages which are envisaged by some for the development of the Community. The machinery of this Bill is perfectly apt for monetary union, economic union, defence union. But we should not permit, and nor should we be content, that this machinery should be harnessed to these further and greater purposes. If these are to be envisaged at any time, it must be as a result of new departures of policy, taking the form of

new legislation and of a new phase in our relations with Europe. That is the justification for the demand in the two Amendments that in no circumstances should the mechanism of the Bill automatically, or by the simple procedures of the Clause as at present drafted, be harnessed to these further developments of the Community.
Having argued that, I almost wonder whether it was not superfluous to put the Amendments down, because, unless I am mistaken, this is the view of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is certainly the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. However, the views of my two right hon. and hon. Friends do not always seem precisely to coincide. Yesterday my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General actually rebuked me and corrected me for having assumed that these further developments would necessarily take place by the making of treaties which fall within the scope of Clause 1. He clearly distinguished "could" from "would". He said it was quite true that one could use treaties falling within Clause 1 to proceed to subsequent stages of development of the Community. But he cast doubt upon the proposition that it would be so. And this was in line with what he said last week. For last week my hon. and learned Friend, who feels as we do that it would be an abuse to proceed to these major additional steps without further legislation, had sought to argue that, if we did not like a resolution, we could throw it out and so get legislation instead.
Yesterday I think he went, in a way, further than that. He said
I suggested that, to certain limits at least, it could be done…
that is to say Clause 1 could be used
provided that each treaty was properly regarded as ancillary in that way. I certainly do not suggest it would be done because obviously one of the alternatives would remain—the opportunity of using legislation rather than an Order in Council…
Then come the important words, which show there is no real disagreement between us
…as being more appropriate in any significant or substantial cases".—[Official Report, 14th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 349–350.]


I presume that the extension of the treaties and development of the Community for economic, monetary and defence union must fall under the description of a "significant or substantial case."
We therefore have it on the authority of my hon. and learned Friend that he regards de novo legislation as the appropriate method if those subsequent stages were ever to be entered upon. Consequently, my right hon. and learned Friend in accepting the sense of the Amendments—he can tinker around with the drafting, and no doubt would need to—is giving away nothing. He is only putting in the Bill what his hon. and learned Friend has said. He is not throwing away any power which he believes any future Government should wish to use. All he would be doing would be to remove an element of anxiety or doubt by which hon. Members on both sides have been much exercised.
Should he say, "Well, yes, but it is an unreasonable anxiety. Surely a declaration such as I have just quoted is sufficient to ease the anxieties of hon. Members?", my answer is simply that the House in this Bill is legislating as it has never legislated before. It is not only fair but it is our duty when we do so that we should demand that the limits upon what we are doing should be clearly seen on the face of the legislation. That will be the result of the acceptance of the Amendments. They will not stand in the way of any purpose of my right hon. Friends. They cannot be in any way objectionable or offensive to the most ardent enthusiast for British membership of the European Community. What I say is that it is a simple act of decency and duty on the part of the House to see that these things are in the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I have been thoroughly enjoying the crash course in law which I have been undertaking in the past few days in the Committee. I have understood about one-third of the terms used, but one term new to me has now entered by own vocabulary. That is "a legal personality". It is very useful and attractive, and I shall use it repeatedly. A legal personality is something that exists, that has rights and obligations in law. I want to carry the terms a little further and deal with the

European Economic Community and the two other communities fused together with it, the European Communities, as a social organism subject to certain laws of development, the precise nature of which have not yet been discerned. It will evolve, and is already beginning to evolve in ways never expected by its founders, in ways to which many existing statesmen in the Six definitely objected when the processes began.
There was a time when the late President de Gaulle of blessed and happy memory—if he were alive we should not be going through this ridiculous exercise—engaged in periodic unofficial strikes against the Community and many of its institutions. The one institution of the Community that he detested above all others was the Commission, because it was a supranational organisation, and the late President had no time for supranational organisations, unless he had 90 per cent., control of any one, such as the French Union. That is not an entirely uncivilised attitude to take.
We have seen a conversion recently on the part of President Pompidou, which cannot entirely be ascribed to the persuasive charms of our Prime Minister. We have seen the French President accepting propositions, even the Commission and many of its works, which his predecessor would cross himself before even mentioning. Why is this? What has produced this change? If we accept the conspiratorial theory of politics we must assume that some sort of—

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Is it not customary to have at least one Minister here to reply to the points raised? We have a situation now in which we have not got a Minister present to deal with any points that may be raised.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that the Chair has no control over the movement of Ministers. Might I just take this opportunity of suggesting that the hon. Gentleman relate his arguments to the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It is a simple fact that the Solicitor-General, who is mainly


responsible for this Bill, has been absent for the greater part of the last debate.

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must know that this is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not give a damn really whether Ministers are present or not. I am addressing myself to intelligent backbenchers whom I trust—

The Temporary Chairman: Would the hon. Gentleman also please address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: I was about to do so but I was recruiting for my lobby, as is my right.
This quasi-automatic process of evolution within the Community from a purely customs union in the beginning to a legal and political personality has already been noted in the European Press, and I quote from journals which are in the Library in translation.
In the Stuttgarter Zeitung of 4th February we read:
Defence is Nato's pigeon, the argument runs. Yet of late there have been signs that the EEC is assuming greater importance in the defence sector than the countries concerned are willing to admit.
It proceeds with the kind of argument which I briefly outline, that it is inevitable, given the process of fusion and union that is now going on, that at some point an international organisation with its own personality shall be fully armed with all the attributes of a real federation and that defence must feature on the agenda.
A rather less important journal, the Kölnische Anzeiger of 12th February, talks about relations with other countries determining developments on the home front. It goes on:
There must be both a supranational body and supranational authority on foreign and defence policy matters.
I regard this process as being almost automatic, as being beyond the will of any Minister in this or any other Parliament or even in a European Parliament. As this Community—and it is already three in one, the holy trinity is already with us—evolves, its supranational institutions by and of themselves will proceed to the creation of supranational political

institutions, for the reasons so eloquently given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and as a natural corollary of that there will have to be a defence organisation related to that political organisation.
In actual fact there is very little going on in Europe at this moment that makes any kind of sense unless it is related to the development of a federal authority in Europe, and a federal authority will have to have a defence apparatus. What form will that defence apparatus take? Very often in order to go forward statesmen go backwards, and I do not regard it as beyond the bounds of possibility that the European defence community idea will be resurrected. It was killed in the French Assembly by 319 votes to 264, but we got something out of the wreckage—Western European Union—and the idea has been canvassed by many defence correspondents in both articles and books that that Western European Union could become the nucleus of a purely European defence force with a very strong nuclear element in it. But the argument proceeded even further, until it reached the Godkin lectures, and it is now before us in the House of Commons. It is the idea that in some strange way the French nuclear force and our own nuclear force should be combined into a unified nuclear deterrent to be held in trust for some future political organisation in Europe.
Technically, this is a load of nonsense, because it is almost as impossible to fuse the nuclear components of our armoury and the French nuclear components of their armoury. It would be like trying to join apples and oranges and produce another type of fruit. What the French have got does not fit in very well with what we have got, and although the French have spent about three times as much as we have done up to the end of 1971 on developing the force de frappe—which has now acquired a newname—its military value will decrease rather than increase as more and more money is spent on it, because the Polaris-type weapons system is about to be superseded; even the system which carries the Poseidon warhead is also about to be superseded.
Therefore, we are dealing not with a fully-fledged nuclear force which can


have any meaningful effect upon diplomacy, because only a deterrent force which can in certain circumstances be used can exert any such influence; we are dealing with something which, as far as the French are concerned, is obsolescent. But what kind of doctrine, when we move from the nuts and bolts to the doctrine which guides the deployment of those nuts and bolts would have to be accepted if France and Britain were to form the nucleus of a nuclear force?
The French idea was once eloquently expressed at the Institute of Strategic Studies by a French general whose name escapes me—it is nice to welcome people to the more expensive seats in this theatre—and this was that, whereas the American nuclear force was designed to point roughly in all directions, the apparatus of N.A.T.O. was directed almost entirely towards the east. If we are to enter into a deal with the French and they still adhere to that philosophy—and they have slowed down the process of changing their philosophies in recent years—we are subscribing to something that is very dangerous and that would severely imbalance the present rough balance of terror which we have in the world.
The second thing that has to be emphasised is that if the French doctrine were to be carried to its logical conclusion, we would have insuperable difficulties in producing a suitable command and control structure. It is true that Mr. Franz Josef Strauss, who is my least favourite German, has made suggestions as to what such a command and control structure should be. In his book he suggested that it should be passed to the president of a European federation. Then, with uncharacteristic modesty, he said that such a president would not in any circumstances be a German, that the Germans would impose a self-denying ordinance upon themselves. I do not doubt that he meant what he said and believed it when he said it, but the imbalance in the balance of terror comes from the fact that the Russians will not believe that. They will believe that someone like him at some future time may assume control of the Federal Republic of Germany and may even begin progress towards the presidency of a European federation.
It is perfectly justifiable for hon. Members to say that these are fantasies, but they are based on fears, and fears happen to be facts in international relations. I suggest that this idea—and I do not care who propounds it—would be so severely an imbalancing factor in international relations that it would undo such good work as has been done by the deterrent over the last 15 years.
I do not believe that if a third nuclear centre were established it would be in any position to handle crises, to indulge in what the Americans call crisis management. I happen to believe that nuclear weapons can play a rôle only in that type of crisis management. The last occasion when they played such a rôle was during the Cuban crisis. The essential fact about the Cuban crisis was that two identifiable persons were in charge of authentic nuclear systems that were not threatened. I want to read to the House some very wise words written in 1963 about that situation. This was dealing with Skybolt. The quotation is:
Neither the multinational nor the multilateral nuclear force is really necessary from the standpoint of a coherent nuclear strategy. Such a strategy, involving the development of weapon systems to frighten rather than fight with, bears a close resemblance to chess. And only two can play chess. This was demonstrated during
the Cuban crisis.
Mr. Kennedy did not consult his allies when he made his delicate and dangerous moves in the Caribbean in October 1962. Nor did Mr. Krushchev consult his…Both menunderstood that just as there could be only one finger on the nuclear trigger there could be only one on the safety catch.
That was written by a certain Raymond Fletcher in 1963. I often wonder what happened to him.
This Amendment is not presented because it is assumed that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a villainous militaristic gentleman, but we do not leglislate for amiable gentlemen in amiable circumstances in the House. In this case, we are legislating for our grandchildren and great-grandchilden. What we are trying to do—so far as I am concerned it is the only thing I am trying to do—is to remove a very dangerous temptation from the hands of any future Government because, given this type of Bill as an Act of Parliament with this Clause unamended, I would not even trust my hon. Friend


the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to act in a rational way confronted with this kind of temptation. It is the business of the House as a legislative assembly to remove temptation, from the paths not of virtuous gentlemen like the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but of such of his successors as may acquire very bad habits indeed.
If we go into this Community in such a way as would augment rather than slow down the processes towards supra-nationalism which must inevitably produce a resurrection of the European Defence Community which took four years to kill, inevitably there will be other fingers on nuclear triggers. I am not talking about any specific nationality at the moment, but the more fingers there are on nuclear triggers the more difficult the handling of any crisis is going to be. If just to gain some hypothetical commercial advantages we are to do this thing in the field of weaponry, in the field of diplomacy and in the field of defence, we

are bigger damned fools than I thought we were when first I was elected to the House.

Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton): Like you, Mr. Godman Irvine, I have to spend a good many hours in Standing Committee. It is extremely difficult to pick up the threads of a debate, but I hope I shall not go over ground—

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman leftthe Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the European Communities Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Clegg.]

The House divided: Ayes 211. Noes 180.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[10 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fell, Anthony
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Astor, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jopling, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Fidler, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kershaw, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kilfedder, James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kimball, Marcus


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Benyon, W.
Fortescue, Tim
Kinsey, J. B.


Biggs-Davison, John
Fox, Marcus
Kirk, Peter



Fry, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Blaker, Peter
Gibson-Watt, David
Knox, David


Body, Richard
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lane, David


Boscawen, Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bowden, Andrew
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John
Le Merchant, Spencer


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gower, Raymond



Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bryan, Paul
Green, Alan
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Grieve, Percy
Loveridge, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Luce, R. N.


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Grylls, Michael
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Carlisle, Mark
Gummer, J. Selwyn
MacArthur, Ian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gurden, Harold
McCrindle, R. A.


Chapman, Sydney
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McLaren, Martin


Churchill, W. S.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McMaster, Stanley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Cockeram, Eric
Haselhurst, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Maddan, Martin


Cooper, A. E.
Havers, Michael
Madel, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hawkins, Paul
Marten, Neil


Cormack, Patrick
Hiley, Joseph
Mather, Carol


Costain, A. P.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mawby, Ray


Critchley, Julian
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crouch, David
Holt, Miss Mary
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
Hordern, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Curran, Charles
Hornby, Richard
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.James
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Moate, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Howell, David (Guildford)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
James, David
More, Jasper




Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Morrison, Charles
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Murton, Oscar
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Neave, Airey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tilney, John


Normanton, Tom
Rost, Peter
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Nott, John
Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Onslow, Cranley
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Osborn, John
Sharples, Richard
Wall, Patrick


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walters, Dennis


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sinclair, Sir George
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Warren, Kenneth


Pardoe, John
Soref, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Parkinson, Cecil
Speed, Keith
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Peel, John
Spence, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Percival, Ian
Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Jerry


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stainton, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Pounder, Rafton
Steel, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Redmond, Robert
Tapsell, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Ridsdale, Julian
Temple, John M.
Mr. Hamish Gray


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey






NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John


Allen, Scholefield
Foot, Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Baxter, William
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mendelson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamling, William
Milne, Edward


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Hooson, Emlyn
Murray, Ronald King


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oram, Bert


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)




Palmer, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pendry, Tom


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prescott, John


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rankin, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Rose, Paul B.


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Dormand, J. D..
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Duffy, A. E. P
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Fred
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Harry
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Faulds, Andrew
McCann, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)







Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Urwin, T. W.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Varley, Eric G.
Whitehead, Phillip


Strang, Gavin
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Swain, Thomas
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Taverne, Dick
Watkins, David



Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Tinn, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. John Golding.


Tomney, Frank

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Captain W. Elliot: As I said to your predecessor, Sir Robert, I hope that because of my enforced absence upstairs on a good many occasions I shall not cover too much of the ground which has been covered already.
It seemed to me that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) raised some important points. He created some anxiety in my mind. As he said, there is no mention of defence in the Treaty of Rome, and there was no mention of it in the negotiations other than a reference to the fact that it was not discussed within the framework of the negotiations.
I assume in the first place that the effects of our entry on our existing defence treaties will be nil, and I include even those of which we are the only European country to be a member. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is the future with which we are concerned, and we have to consider the possible development of a European defence policy. Certainly this appears to be one area of policy in which any agreements would have to be unanimous within the Community.
I should like to know whether, if such a policy was decided upon, this House would have an opportunity to register its opinion on any arrangement that was considered. Indeed, I might go further and ask whether the House would have an opportunity to reject it and, if so, how.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, Europe may develop defence arrangements in the future which are quite different from those existing today. Presumably such decisions would have to be unanimous within the European Community. However, opinion in the House might be divided, on party lines or across them. A division across party lines might reject certain aspects of it; for example, the disposition of forces, the command structure, and so on.
10.15 p.m.
It is possible to visualise a European defence treaty where in certain circum-

stances this country could go and Europe still survive. It will be recalled that in much the same way at one critical stage of the last war it was considered that Australia could go and the Nazis and Japanese could still be defeated. Such implications, if they were to affect this country, would have to be closely examined before any new European defence policy was decided. Shall we have the opportunity to carry out that examination in the House of Commons and, if necessary, reject it completely or part of it, and at what stage?

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East mentioned conscription and nuclear defence. As I see it, those are important parts of the whole arrangement. If we can discuss the whole thing, there is no reason why we should not discuss those items.

I should have thought that any new defence arrangement in Europe within the framework of the European Economic Community would require a new treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Powell) is not in the Chamber. However, I do not agree that, as he seemed to imply, a more closely integrated Europe would not give this country more security. I believe that it would.

The Treaty of Rome does not refer to defence; nor do the negotiations. At some time there will have to be a debate on this matter if these developments take place. Will it be a meaningful or a hollow debate?

Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said he hoped to receive some replies to his questions from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I hope there will be a response to this request. In past debates we have had very few replies from the right hon. and learned Gentleman or from other members of the Government. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make an effort to address himself to the substantial points which have been put to him by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members. I do not think he can argue that on the debate so far, and particularly on the opening speech, he has replied to


all these points before, which has been his habit of late in responding to debates in Committee.
I do not want to repeat any of the points made by my right hon. Friend, but merely to add a number of relevant considerations to this set of Amendments. We have to consider that the intentions of the Government and of the Prime Minister in particular in this sphere are on record. There can be no doubt about the Prime Minister's views.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his two interventions, was far too limited in merely repeating that this matter had not been discussed in the negotiations on transitional arrangements. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he would wish to make advances in nuclear arrangements with France. Indeed, he has gone beyond that in several public statements.
The Godkin lectures which the Prime Minister delivered to the University of Harvard have been republished as a booklet entitled "Edward Heath: Old World, New Horizons". The Prime Minister was talking about international affairs and not his domestic policy. The title continues, "Britain, the Common Market and the Atlantic Alliance". The booklet is published by the Oxford University Press, it is the copyright of the President and Fellows of the Harvard College, 1970, and published in the United States by Harvard University Press.
On pages 72 and 73, the origin of the references to the Prime Minister's statement on this matter, we read:
Can these different national attitudes be brought together into a European defence policy? In my view, the question should be put the other way round. Can one conceive, over the long term, of a Europe growing together as we have described in an increasing number of ways and yet not trying to provide coherently for its own defence? I do not myself think it realistic to suppose that defence will be excluded indefinitely from the European experiment. Too many practical arguments point in the same direction. For example it is unlikely that after spending so much money and skill the Governments of either Britain or France will simply allow their nuclear forces to wither away and return to complete reliance on the United States deterrent. Yet the cost of keeping a nuclear deterrent credible may well before long rise to far above the resources of any individual medium power, however determined, that the idea of a European defence system will prove highly

attractive to them. Similarly, we most of us recognise that the Russians and the East Europeans have a legitimate interest in ensuring that Germany does not emerge as an independent military power dominating Central Europe.
I put particular emphasis on these last words:
Yet if what I have just said about Germany is right we are going to have to find a better means than we have now of assuring the Germans that they are equals in Europe and the world. Here again, logic points to an eventual European defence system.
I have deliberately quoted the whole of those two paragraphs because it would be unfair to the Prime Minister, particularly in his absence, to do otherwise. I hope that one of these days, particularly as we are considering policies that he has initiated, he will honours the Committee with his presence. It is well known that many members of the present Cabinet have had their ups and down over Britain joining the Community. Ministers have differing views on this subject. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is specifically identified with the Bill, and it would be helpful if he would occasionally grace our proceedings with his presence.

Mr. Robert Adley: Mr. Robert Adley (Bristol, North-East)rose—

Mr. Mendelson: I will not give way. Why should I, when the hon. Gentleman has just strolled into the debate?
It would have been unfair of me to have quoted only part of that passage from the Prime Minister's speech. He expects the E.E.C. to move towards being a defence organisation, though he recognises that a German problem is involved. The quotation concludes with him saying that somehow the Federal Republic of Germany must be persuaded that it is an equal in every respect.
That links up with a recent article in Le Monde in which the Prime Minister said that, while he had first germinated this idea, he had been glad to note that Herr Strauss had since supported the idea of a third nuclear European community.
Hon. Members may have been present in Westminster Hall some time ago when Herr Strauss delivered a 31-page paper at the invitation of the European Atlantic Committee. In that speech he welcomed the efforts that were being made—remember, this was before the signing of the Treaty of Accession—to get the


United Kingdom into the E.E.C. He went on to say that unless Britain went in to take part in a third nuclear defence community within the E.E.C. he was not the least bit interested whether or not we joined. That is his official view, and hemade it clear before 300 people, 50 of them hon. Members.
After that statement was published, the British Prime Minister said in an article in Le Monde that he very much welcomed the support he had received from that quarter. There were other people in West Germany to whom the Prime Minister could have looked for support. He could have found many other allies, friends and co-operators. He might have made an appropriate reference to the Prime Minister of the Federal Republic. Instead, however, he particularly welcomed support for the idea of such a nuclear demand from Herr Strauss.
This matter of trying to define how in future a Government would be constitutionally circumscribed, which is the burden of this series of Amendments, in dealing with an extension of the E.E.C. in the defence field is practical politics. I accept that it is not a matter for tomorrow. It may not be a matter for the next 12 months. But it is something which the Prime Minister regards as absolutely inevitable in the long term.
We therefore have a serious duty to make certain that, as far as possible, the conditions under which any such future policies might be conceived by this or any later Government are brought fully under the legislative control of the House of Commons.

Mr. Marten: Was the hon. Gentleman at another meeting in Westminster Hall when the German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, spoke? On that occasion I asked him a direct question. I asked if Europe could speak with one voice and if, to do that, it had to have one Government. After a second's pause he replied, "Yes".

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Mendelson: Yes. I was present at that meeting. But this is not necessarily germane to the matter of a third nuclear command, because it is quite possible, to be fair to the people who have ideas about the development of a European Parliament, to which I shall come shortly, for hon. Members and people outside to hold such views and

still be completely opposed to the setting up of a third nuclear command in the E.E.C. It is possible to hold these views jointly. I have never heard or seen any evidence whatsoever that Herr Brandt is moving in that direction; there is nothing on record from him. On the contrary, my understanding is that in the discussions with the Eastern European Powers in recent months he has not supported the idea of a third European nuclear command.
To return to the Amendments, what is involved seems to be the very reasonable request, as put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, supported by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), beseeching the Government to explain why they have not wished in past debates, or do not wish today, to accept any Amendments. That is the crux of the matter on the procedural aspect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East has read the record of the debates, very assiduously, as became clear from his speech.
The Government have so far argued—this may not so clearly appear in the printed record of our many hours of debate—that the Committee should accept their assurance that there will be an opportunity, at any time in the future when the Members of the House of Commons—undefined; a majority or any group of hon. Members—feel that the procedure outlined in the two halves of Clause 1(3)is not appropriate, for the House of Commons to be able to insist on a different method being used, including the legislative method. That is the Government's case.
The defect in that is that the Government are representing the House of Commons as if it had nothing to do with political power, as if it were a debating society; saying that if at any time in the future a Government had committed themselves to a big extension of the powers and functions of the E.E.C. they would then leave it to chance whether there were groups of Members of the House of Commons, however organised, who would then completely overturn the plans, intentions and the method that the Government wanted to use. That is too naive an approach to accept, either from the Chancellor of the Duchy or from the Solicitor-General. I beg them to address


themselves seriously to this argument, at least on this occasion. If they feel that in some of the other debates they have been going over some of the ground once or twice, they must admit that this defence aspect has not yet arisen. On this occasion, they should address themselves seriously to the constitutional part of the argument. If they did so, they ought to arrive very quickly at the conclusion that the request for the Amendment is modest and very reasonable.
I do not quite take the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, that there is an essential age-long difference between our approach to law and that of the people of France. I part company with him in that as he expressed it today; I do not believe that to be true. He gave us a quotation from a last conversation between M. Malraux and the late General de Gaulle. I do not consider General de Gaulle the best witness to the attitude of the French people to democracy and constitutionalism. It would take much more than a quotation from the late General de Gaulle to build up an indictment and classification of the French people and their history.
In reply to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I say that when he goes through the history of France he will find that what was known for many centuries as the French Parliament was most closely tied to French law, and he will find there is a very deep tradition there in the same direction and with the same basis as here. A characteristic of the de Gaulle flirtation, and of recent years in French politics, is the move towards authoritarian government. This is not characteristic of the French people, who gave us the revolution in 1789 and the beginnings of modern democratic government and institutions, and all the modern English societies were first founded at the end of the 18th century as societies in support of the French revolution. The right hon. Gentleman has been giving us a topsy-turvy sort of history, and I believe he was expressing a somewhat nationalistic view which does not do justice to the traditions or views of the French people in general. I must dissent from that view.
In the last 15 years General de Gaulle and the Gaullists have destroyed the

powers of the French Assembly and have deliberately moved towards authoritarian Government. The important thing for our debates is that in the recent conversations between President Pompidou and the Prime Minister there has been the beginning of an understanding which is very dangerous, which bodes ill for the future of the rights of the House and for parliamentary government in this country. What are they talking about? I do not share the fears expressed, even by some of my hon. Friends, that we are now facing a very rapid move towards a European Parliament which will possess real power and which will control everything. That is not the present mood of the meetings between the Prime Minister and President Pompidou.
We know very little about what has happened in the discussions in Paris, but a realistic assessment is that there has been an understanding between the President and the Prime Minister that a strong European Parliament shall not be developed. Therefore, the danger so far implied in the debates is far more serious than has so far been revealed. It could at least be argued, if we were moving in that direction, that there might be a properly elected European Parliament developing some of the safeguards that the British Parliament has had over the years.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has moved rather wide of the subject matter of the Amendments. I fail to notice anything in the discussion which deals with the creation of a European Parliament or of Britain joining it. He must come back to the subject of defence.

Mr. Mendelson: With respect, Sir Myer, in all the debates so far right hon. and hon. Members have been arguing that implied in the setting up of a defence organism in the European Community there is a tight system of European federal government, and that has been held to be completely in order, I assure you. If I wish to combat that argument, which has been seriously advanced, and point to the far bigger dangers involved in such a development I must be able to use in my argument the facts as they emerge from the discussions between the French President and the Prime Minister which have been quoted by so many hon. Members. I do it only to that


extent, and only with that intention, not in any way to go into wider considerations.
It is a fact of life today that we have no hope whatever of looking towards—this may be of interest to some of my hon. Friends—the development of a really powerful central European Parliament within the Community which would control any defence organism which might be set up. We have no hope of that, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however reticent he may be to talk about these things today, knows it very well. One of the reasons why I want the Prime Minister to be present is that I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not dare to talk about these things in his right hon. Friend's absence. If the Prime Minister were here, both of them might feel a little easier in talking on these matters. I can understand the difficulty which the Chancellor of the Duchy may feel in the absence of his right hon. Friend. We have an authoritarian Cabinet, and one can understand that relations between its various members are not always too easy.
If we have nothing suitable written into the Bill, and if we see this trend towards a more authoritarian form of Government, the reason why the Bill is drafted as it is becomes more understandable. I am not very hopeful of our being able to persuade the Government, merely by the force of reasonable argument, to accept some of these Amendments. If the European Economic Community is to develop a defence organism, if the idea of the third nuclear command—to which the Labour Party has always been totally opposed—is to become a policy which the Prime Minister wishes to support, we shall, I believe, see that policy gradually introduced.
The Prime Minister will not wish to go through an early legislative process on all these matters. It may be much more convenient for the Government, together, perhaps, with the French Government and then later with the German and Italian Governments, to take some first steps to develop the system of a third nuclear command—it will not be born overnight—and then come to Parliament at a much later stage, with a three-day debate or a six-day debate—albeit that such debates can never be a substitute for the power of decision, as we have seen—and

say, "This system has been fairly well developed. Here it is. The life of the Government is at stake, and you must back us up." That is much the more likely way in which such a development may come about. That danger, too, is another reason why the Government should accept some of the Amendments.
I come now to the discussions which will take place at Chequers in a few days. We know that when the matter of nuclear co-operation was raised briefly in Paris the two statesmen did not go into the matter in any great detail. But we know also—and this makes it very topical—that originally, when the President was coming at an earlier date, there were semi-official sources in Paris which said that on this occasion the President would find it suitable that some of these matters should be approached.
Parliament is entitled to have some information on the matter. It is entitled to know whether the Government now take the view that the time is ripe for a beginning of such discussions. We do not ask them to go into detail about conversations between the Prime Minister and the President which have not even been held, but they ought to come clean on this question. So far, the Chancellor of the Duchy has twice said—he interrupted my right hon. Friend to say it—that no such discussions have taken placein the negotiations. But do the Government now believe that the time is ripe for such discussions? That is the minimum that the people of Britain should be told.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should tell us. He intervened eagerly to deny that any such discussions had taken place. If he is eager to deny that—it is not a formal point in debating the Amendments; it is a policy statement of some importance, and he is entitled to make it—he ought to be equally concerned to tell the Committee the Government's present view about the near future and the longer-term future. He should say it in reply to this debate.
10.45 p.m.
These Amendments would go some way towards making it more difficult for the dangerous process I have described, and which I fear, to take place. One thing is certain. If there is to be one danger of war in Europe in the next 10 or 15 years it will be the danger


of an association of Germany with a nuclear command on the Continent of Western Europe. I am deeply suspicious of some Conservative Members who say, "Economics does not matter. Don't worry about the price of butter. We want to join because we must re-create a powerful Europe"—they do not say "E.E.C." or "Western Europe", but "Europe"—"with a strong tendency of bitter opposition to the Socialist countries of Europe, with a strong tendency of wanting to be the dominating power all over Europe." It is no good the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) shaking his head. There are Conservative right hon. Members who hold views like those of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who has nipped into the debate and has nipped out again, who has argued for years at meetings of Western European Union that he wanted a Western European nuclear command. He has moved motions to that effect. I am deeply suspicious, and so should Parliament be, of some of the tendencies of people looking for new military power and glory as part of the E.E.C. and its future, who want to build up not just an economic community but a powerful military bloc. These are the real issues that we are discussing.
That is the background to the Amendments. People outside sometimes ask us, "Why do you spend so many hours on the details of an Amendment that seems to deal only with procedure on the face of it?" This is the answer. I have deliberately taken an additional couple of minutes to make this link between the argument on procedure and the dangerous reality behind it.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was beginning to think he might be prepared to give way only to anti-Marketeers, and I am sure that is not the case. I am not a warmonger, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are now 27 years beyond the end of the Second World War, 27 years which might be described as nuclear years, whereas 27 years after the end of the First World War we had already gone through the Second World War? Is there not some significance in that?

Mr. Mendelson: I have not addressed myself to the argument that other hon. Members have advanced about the efficiency of the nuclear balance and the nuclear terror. That is not the subject of debate. I have addressed myself to the point that the setting up of a defence organism, which the Prime Minister in the Godkin lecture said would involve nuclear weapons, is a very dangerous development for the peace of Europe, and that the creation of such a bloc with its own nuclear weapons is something I am bitterly opposed to.
But, whatever view hon. Members may take about such a future political and defence development, the least we can ask of the Government is to accept the principle that if such a move were planned by any Government in the future the full legislative process of the House must be used. That is the burden of the argument behind the Amendments. I commend them to the Committee.

Mr. Rippon: We have had a wide ranging and extremely interesting debate on defence and the contribution by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) was of the kind we have heard before from him in defence debates. Those of us who have taken part in defence debates rather enjoyed this episode, although some of the matters raised go beyond the scope of the treaties and the Bill. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) recognised that defence matters were outside the scope of the negotiations and treaties. At the same time, I think we are all agreed, as he said, about the vital importance of defence in a European context, and I think also that many on both sides of the Committee believe that the movement towards European unity will bring closer co-operation in defence. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has been one of the foremost advocates on that point of view.
For a student of parliamentary history there has been a certain fascination about the balance of forces here tonight—a certain contrast in emphasis from that which was expressed in the debates that we had on these matters on 21st January, 1971. Then, the right hon. Gentleman put these defence questions into a true context. He said that there may be


political changes on a world-wide basis and went on:
The United States may reduce its commitments in Europe during the coining years and may simultaneously seek bilateral agreements with the Soviet Union. A Europe of which we are not a member could move in very dangerous directions if we are not involved in the way in which it responds to these new political factors.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the observations of the hon. Member for Penistone on the subject of the nuclear future of Europe and pointed out how wrong it had been of the Conservative Government to believe that they could buy their way into the Common Market by offering a nuclear alliance with France, because it was clear that that was not going to happen.
The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with a point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone about Eastern Europe. There was a slight exchange between the hon. Member for Penistone and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) about the attitude of the German Chancellor, Mr. Brandt, to this matter. On the subject, the right hon. Gentleman had some wise words to say:
…all the Socialist parties and trade unions inside the Common Market want faster, not slower, progress towards unity, and they all want Britain and the other applicants in the Common Market. Above all, this is true of the German Government under Chancellor Brandt, because, ever since he got into power, he has made it clear that his Ostpolitik would work only if the Common Market were enlarged.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have made eloquent and impressive speeches against entry, to consider the impact of our exclusion on our best friends in Europe as well as on our future in the world."—[Official Report, 21st January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 1399–1401.]
So of course, on the general matters, the position of the right hon. Gentleman has been perfectly clear for a long time. I shall deal with what is essentially a technical Amendment on drafting of the Bill, but I have no reason to deny what he said in general on the matters of European unity and European defence.
It was a little surprising to hear the right hon. Gentleman quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) with such evident approval on this occasion. It is true that circumstances change for many people, but the right hon. Gentleman was not so lyrical about my right

hon. Friend on that occasion, because he said:
The main problem which has worried the opponents of entry on both sides of the House has been its effect on the identity of Britain, however this is expressed—in terms of worry about freedom of action, worry about our sovereignty, worry about the Community developing supernatural powers or moving into a federation or into a political, economic and financial union.
He went on to say:
This worry was most eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Once again, he erected a glittering edifice of argument by systematic logical extrapolation from a phrase in a speech. Having dazzled us with this display of pure reason, he then appealed to the dark instincts of primaeval blood and earth. This is a style of his—beating the ideological tom-tom—with which we are all familiar, and it never fails to assemble the tribes."—[Official Report, 21st January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 1395.]
The right hon. Gentleman used rather harsher words then than he used tonight.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a good speech for the debate we had in January, 1971. Sir Myer, you were quite strict with my hon. Friend who was speaking a moment ago for not addressing himself to the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman so far has not even begun to discuss the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Rippon: I apologise for embarrassing the right hon. Gentleman. I will come back to the point and say, in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, that the only occasion on which he beat the ideological tom-tom, went back to primaeval ideas and summoned the tribes today was when he made a rather curious distinction between the Anglo-Saxons and the Latins, perhaps knowing that some people are afraid of this distinction.

Mr. Powell: Just for the record, I was quoting General de Gaulle in evidence of his view.

Mr. Rippon: I thought that my right hon. Friend was adopting General de Gaulle's view for the purposes of his argument and slightly distorting the compliment that the General was paying to the Anglo-Saxons. However that may be, I will not tease my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman any more about what they have said on past occasions.
I will bring the debate back to the technical terms of the Amendments. Amendment No. 148 seeks to define a treaty and to make the definition of the word "treaty" exhaustive rather than inclusive, as it now is. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General this afternoon dealt with the question of the way in which a treaty is defined, and I will not go into that again, except to say that to adopt an exhaustive definition of an essentially flexible term would be wrong.
The substantive debate has taken place on Amendment No. 149, which seeks to exclude any international agreement relating to defence from the definition of treaties provided for in Clause 1. It is presumably intended as a safeguard against the extension of Community treaties into the field of defence. It was put forward in that way rather than as providing an opportunity for a general debate on defence policy.
I think that the Committee will agree that the Amendment would have no effect on the implementation of the Community treaties as they now stand, none of which relates in any way to defence. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East made that perfectly clear. The Community treaties do not cover defence, and in consequence major amendments would be required to enable them to do so. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. and right hon. Members are concerned about the way in which those amendments might be made, the consequences of them, and the way in which they relate to the definition in the Bill.
With respect, I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is in error on two counts. First, as I listened to him, I felt that he was assuming that a Community defence treaty would be ancillary and therefore within Clause 1.

Mr. Healey: No. Not at all.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: That is perhaps hypothetical, but I should make clear, as the Solicitor-General said last night, that "ancillary" should be given a narrow interpretation. He dealt with that point at col. 349 of the Official Report of 14th March.
If a treaty is to be regarded as ancillary, it must be auxiliary to the purposes of

the present treaties. It is inconceivable that a major defence Community treaty going outside the economic purposes of the present Community could be regarded as ancillary.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman assumed that a Community defence treaty would require a Clause 1(3) Order in Council if there were not a Bill, but the first question that would have to be asked, if there were some defence treaty or agreement, would be whether the treaty required a change in law. Most defence arrangements do not go through Parliament in the form of legislation.
The basic West European defence treaties are the North Atlantic Treaty and the Brussels Treaty of March, 1948, as amended by the protocol signed in Paris in October, 1954, together with the other 1954 protocols. The signatories of the revised Brussels Treaty were Britain and the Six.
The development of the European Communities involved no defence obligations for the signatories of the European treaties because they have no defence aspects, but it has all along been the aim of successive British Governments to increase European defence co-operation, and in recent years a good deal of progress has been made. I am the first to pay tribute to what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East contributed towards the development of the Eurogroup and co-operation on various defence projects.
We believe that the increased solidarity and coherence of Western Europe which will follow enlargement will undoubtedly have political as well as economic implications. In the longer run it should make it easier for Europe to organise common defence more effectively.
Even if one believes that, it is far from saying that we expect the enlarged Communities to develop a defence identity. If, in due course, something in the nature of a major defence arrangement were to be worked out for the Community—and I am doing no more than taking a hypothesis raised by the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure, and the Committee can be sure, that Parliament would have a proper opportunity to debate it and to examine the Government about it. That indicates the difficulty about trying to define "treaty" in


a way which is exhaustive rather than inclusive. There are difficulties about that. What matters, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East used to say, is how the Community works. In practice, it has worked in sensible ways.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelsonrose—

Mr. Rippon: I will say what the position is, and then I shall gladly give way. We should think what happened in relation to the past defence treaties which are the foundation of our European defence position.
The Brussels Treaty, 1948 was not—so far as I can discover—debated in Parliament before or after signature, but both the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 and the revised Brussels Treaty of 1954 were debated between signature and ratification, although neither required legislation. That is what would happen if new defence arrangements under the umbrella of the Community went wider than anything which could be regarded as ancillary.
It could not be dealt with in the simple way that some people suggest. It would be subject to the normal parliamentary procedures. It is right that, where appropriate, such defence arrangements should be the subject of general debate. They would be debated only because they are treaties of the kind which do not require changes in our domestic law, and would not normally require legislation. They would be subject to debate. They could not be amended, because treaties of that kind cannot be amended.
I give the assurance to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) that under existing procedures, with no amendment of the kind suggested, there would have to be meaningful debate in Parliament before one could conceive of changing defence arrangements in a major way.

Mr. Healey: I never suggested that the initial treaty setting up a defence community would be regarded as ancillary. I suggested that under the procedures defined in the Bill it would be open for the Government to push such a treaty through the House under the Clause 1(3)B procedure, as we have come to call it in this debate, and thereafter to extend the scope of the Community without reference to the House, on the ground

that the Community, as such, collectively—and not its members—was responsible for that extension. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has completely missed my point.
The other point I made is that if it were the intention of the Community to produce a European defence community on the lines envisaged in the early 1950s it would involve major changes in the organisation of the force. What we wanted—and have not had—from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is an assurance that in such a case he would not attempt to apply the procedures defined in this Bill, but would submit the whole matter to the normal legislative process. If he is prepared to give this assurance, why can he not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think there is any need for that assurance. Changes of that kind could not be regarded as ancillary to the purposes of the present treaties and could be dealt with not in that way but by the normal parliamentary procedures. I go further, in a sense, than an assurance, and say that as the Bill is now drafted, an amendment of that kind could not be regarded as ancillary.
The Amendment seeks to make the definition of treaties exhaustive instead of exclusive. I have been saying that it is wrong as a matter of legal drafting to draft the definition in that way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. He has had explained to him the substance of the point that he made. He cannot expect us to draft the Bill in a bad way in order to give a double assurance of that kind. To try to get a list of subjects which would be exempted in the way in which Amendments Nos. 149 and 187 seek to do would be bad drafting, and ought to be resisted.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewisrose—

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelsonrose—

The Temporary Chairman: I do not know to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving way.

Mr. Rippon: I am giving way to no one. I have finished.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to deal with the point I


raised, namely, the assumption of the process of debates on treaties taking place on the basis of an affirmative Resolution. Assuming that conscription were introduced into the defence policy, will he give an assurance that the House would be able to deal with the matter legislatively, as opposed to using the affirmative Resolution procedure?

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has misunderstood completely what has been going on in the last two hours. It would not be a question of the affirmative Resolution procedure applying in cases of this kind. We should have the normal parliamentary processes for dealing with a defence treaty. Conscription, of course, is a matter entirely outside the range of what we have been discussing.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster concluded his remarks by seeking to soothe some of the anxieties that hon. Members have expressed during our discussions. It would be tempting to return to the earlier part of his speech, in which he enlivened our proceedings by referring to some earlier speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proved by the combination of his quotations and the second part of his speech, in which he attempted to reply to my right hon. Friend, is that if my right hon. Friend is to be contradicted he contradicts himself much better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do it. For that reason, I think that we shall wish to give further attention to the earlier part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech rather than his later remarks.
There was naturally a certain element of dissimilarity between the views of my right hon. Friend which were quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those which my right hon Friend used on a previous occasion, but, as the Committee knows, different shades of opinion are expressed by members of Governments and even by hon. Members on the back benches from time to time. It is not the way in which effective retorts are made in the House because, fundamentally, what we are discussing are the merits of the propositions them-

selves. It is to those that I wish to return.
In this last bunch of debates we have ranged over many matters which we have done little more than touch upon briefly until now. We have been in some difficulty because of the mingling of Amendments dealing with various matters. I am not complaining about the selection, but it presents difficulties to the Committee when we have to deal with such mixed matters as the future provisions of the House governing defence developments following our entry into Europe, and the provisions governing the development of an economic and monetary union.
The same protections in different cases are not necessarily correct. We should have the opportunity of providing different forms of parliamentary protection for different necessities. Therefore, it would have been more satisfactory in some respects if we had been able to dissociate these questions. However, I understand the reason why they have been grouped together. Fundamentally, we are discussing not the merits of the issues themselves but the processes that will be available to the House in years to come. It is in that sense that we must examine the matter most closely.
The question that we have put constantly to the Government and to which we have had no answer, on this occasion as on previous occasions, is: why did they choose this method of restricting what the House might be able to do in future? They may argue that they are sustaining the normal procedures, or meaningful debates. We are not so much concerned about meaningful debates as we are about normal procedures, though, of course, we want to have both.
11.15 p.m.
As far as I can see, the procedures that the Government lay down in the Bill interfere with meaningful debates, in the sense that they show a preference for the style of abbreviated debates which we have had in the past under some of these procedures.
As for normal procedures, the Government are extending greatly the ways in which treaty-making can affect the business of the House of Commons. The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can quote what happened in


the House when we were dealing with the Brussels Treaty, or even the N.A.T.O. alliance or other treaties, does not affect the issue, because we are carrying the process of legislation by treaty-making to a far greater degree than was ever contemplated.
We have never before had a Bill presented to us which included a Schedule of the character that we have here. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could produce a Bill which showed anything comparable, it would be a much better parallel than any citation of the Brussels Treaty or any other treaty. If he could produce a Bill which not merely specified the treaties in the Schedule—which we have been seeking to discuss with the Clause—but had a comparable paragraph 7 in Part I of the Schedule, where vague reference is made to general treaties without specifying them—so that we have to look elsewhere to see what those treaties are—it would be much more impressive than the precedents that he brought before us today.
I now turn to questions on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman hardly touched in his reply and which are dealt with in the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). That Amendment deals not only with defence questions but with economic and monetary union. We have a later Amendment, which I think falls to be discussed with the next bunch, which touches on that subject. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would recognise that this was a most urgent question.
Nobody can deny the claim that the advance towards an economic and monetary union will involve measures that will affect the life of this community in a way that may not be involved in some of the treaties of accession that we have already signed. A treaty that deals with economic and monetary union will probably be of a more far-reaching character than many of the treaties involved in these discussions.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear in a speech at the Press Club last week that he regards this matter as the next item on the agenda, if I may put it that way. He is reported in the

Daily Telegraph of last Saturday as saying
that the October meeting of the 10 Heads of Government of the enlarged Market would concentrate on three broad headings.
1.—Economic and monetary union and social policy.
He said that that was almost the next item on the agenda. That, of course, is a major question.
How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplate the matter of agreement about economic and monetary union being brought before the House of Commons for acceptance? It is no use talking to us about meaningful debates on the matter. No doubt we shall have opportunities to discuss it during proceedings on the Finance Bill this year, and presumably there will be other opportunities for discussing it. But if there is agreement eventually—the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is the next matter—how will it be brought before the House of Commons?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman argues that we should be perfectly satisfied with the existing procedures, but we are not content at all. A movement towards a monetary union is of major importance. It will eat up all the other aspects of monetary policy, like Aaron's rod consuming all the other serpents. On all the other questions that we have argued—devaluation, levels of national currencies and the sovereign rights of States in this area, all of which have been paramount issues of debate in the Community itself in recent months—surely we are entitled to an undertaking in the Bill that they will be dealt with in a different manner than the Clause allows.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it would be difficult to draw a line between the major and minor subjects. I am not saying that we do not want to include other matters, but surely the line can be drawn so that we have not the absolute assurance—we are not satisfied with the Government's assurances—but a guarantee in the Bill that any treaty dealing with economic and monetary union shall be submitted to the full legislative process of the House of Commons.
That guarantee is not given in the Bill, and if we part with it we shall have no final protection against any decision that


the Government may make with the countries of Europe on major questions affecting levels of employment. These are not secondary matters, but matters on which we should have had special provision in the Bill, particularly as the Minister says that they form the next matter on the agenda.
On the question of defence, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to soothe our anxieties by saying that Parliament may be quite sure that we will discuss this matter in the proper way, and that anyway it is inconceivable that the ancillary treaties will be brought in in this way. First, there is some dispute as to what he thinks is the proper way. We think that it is by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Rippon: So long as the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not the present way of doing it.

Mr. Foot: I understand that the Minister argues that there have been treaties dealing with matters of defence which have not involved any question of an Act of Parliament. He says that the proper way has been followed in previous cases, and that therefore we need not make exceptions here. But in the Bill the Minister is proposing that such matters might be dealt with under the affirmative Resolution procedure.
These defence matters should be excluded from the methods that have been devised under the Bill. We want a provision that certain matters of exceptional importance shall be dealt with by other means—and I have described what I think are the other means applying to the economic and monetary union. For defence matters there should be other provisions.
My hon. Friends have quoted articles showing what has been in the Prime Minister's mind for some years. He has contemplated Europe developing into a new form of defence unity. That is the meaning of his statement about wanting to have a fresh nuclear arrangement in Europe. Moreover, in his speech to the Press Club the Chancellor of the Duchy spoke about the third item on the agenda being the creation of
a deeper identity in the Market…a common Community viewpoint in our external relations.

Part of that, no doubt, is the further development of policies on defence.
It has always been the view of the majority of the House of Commons that the development of defence policy should not necessarily go hand in hand with the development of the exact contours of this Community in Western Europe. Hon. Members hold various views about this. I cannot claim to be the strongest advocate of the American alliance in the form that some hon. Members see it, but I recognise the strength of their argument in some respects. But if one develops this new nuclear Power in Europe one will alter the whole balance between the existing nuclear Powers. Those who say that the nuclear umbrella has maintained peace in Europe since 1945—I do not share their view—should recognise that the balance of the umbrella will be upset by these provisions, resulting in more separate fingers being placed on the nuclear trigger.
Some of us think that that is dangerous, for nuclear weapons have a specific quality all their own. They can, in a sense, be wielded only by dictatorial action. They provide powers of dictatorship to those who wield them. We must therefore be careful when taking action which will spread those dictatorial powers, and if we decide to have such a nuclear defence policy in Europe, it must be debated by a means superior to a single affirmative Resolution. Certainly it must not be done in the way that the Government propose.
We say that defence should be excluded from the procedures laid down in Clause 1. If the Government wish to incorporate into the Bill some other way which will allow defence policy to be discussed by Parliament, let them do that and we will examine their suggestion, as long as it is not done by reference to the ad hoc committee.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is it not a fact that under the Treaty of Rome this Parliament and the Cabinet will be completely committed to the line of action which the representative of the Government takes in our name?

Mr. Foot: It is true that the Treaty of Rome governs, or influences, the objective of securing an economic union in Europe, but it does not say anything about military matters. The development


of a political authority will influence military matters, but the Treaty of Rome does not say anything about a military union. That is one reason why defence matters should be excluded from the Bill unless they are specifically dealt with in a way that will enable the House to examine them in detail.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Some of my hon. Friends may not agree with this aspect of my views, but I none the less express them. I have never hesitated on that account before. The way in which the debate is developing, and the way in which the House is being pressed into accepting developments which were never contemplated before, leads us to emphasise these matters. On defence, on economic union and on other questions, because we are in the process of creating these common institutions we are seeking to say that we must make our interests coincide. Our interests often do not coincide. The two sides of the House have different views about foreign policy.

I do not want to see an identity of foreign policy developed between this country and, say, France on questions of attitudes to Africa, or to the developing world, or to the Middle East, unless that country's policies are altered. I fear that if we create an identity of viewpoint on external relations we shall surrender many of the attitudes that the British Government ought to be taking to foreign policy, and we shall surrender those ideas of our interests in order to help establish this institution.

It would be much wiser for the British Government—indeed, for any Government—to discover what are their common interests with other countries and then develop institutions which suit those common interests. The chief illustration is the common agricultural policy. Hardly anybody argues that that policy suits our interests but, in order to adopt the institution, we have to abandon our interests and adapt ourselves to the institution.

The same thing now applies to Parliament on a much bigger scale. Previously nobody has ever suggested that a Bill of this nature would be brought to the House to restrict the rights of Parliament for its own sake. Not even the Solicitor-General has said that the affirmative Resolution procedure which he has

devised should be extended generally. He would not have suggested that at all if he could have helped it. Here again, in the case of Parliament, we are abandoning our interests in many respects. In order to adapt ourselves to this other institution we are abandoning the right to maintain the supremacy of Parliament, and the same thing applies to foreign policy and defence, particularly if what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has forecast proves to be true.

For 20 years both Front Benches have agreed that it is better to develop defence policy in Europe irrespective of the Common Market organisation, but now the interests of maintaining the defence organisation in the way that it has been built up are being abandoned by people who think that that is the best thing to do in order to adapt ourselves to the institutions. One can think of example after example.

In order to establish the institution we are shedding one advantage after another. In order to adapt ourselves to the institution we are abandoning one control after another over our economic affairs, over our foreign policy, over defence policy, over nuclear policy—over one matter after another.

Mr. Adley: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the question about nuclear policy and the House of Commons? As I was at school at the time, perhaps he can remind the Committee of the legislation brought before the House of Commons by Mr. Attlee when, as Prime Minister, he first introduced the nuclear policy?

Mr. Foot: I gladly give the hon. Gentleman my answer. It was quite scandalous that the decision of the British Government of the day, supported, I suspect, by the Opposition of the day—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh. There are such things as discussions. Some of the developments of atomic policy were agreed to by the party opposite without consulting Parliament. But there is no concealing my view; that merely supports what I am saying otherwise. I believe in the paramount control of Parliament. Therefore, when, in 1948 or 1949, a Labour Government decided to proceed with the manufacture of the atomic weapon without presenting the question to Parliament it was a quite


wrong course for them to take. Just as I protested as soon as I discovered the facts then, so I try to protest now, before we release this power. Whatever else I am inconsistent about, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) must not think that I am inconsistent about this.
All these questions should be subject to the control of the elected representatives of the people. That is what I argue for. The hon. Gentleman must not think that I am merely fabricating this case to inconvenience the Government, or anything of that sort. These questions are much too important for anything of that sort.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: May I underline to my hon. Friend, to emphasise his point, that by the very nature of the Bill we are doing something which none of the Parliaments of the Six would ever permit? The most obvious example that I recall is the way in which the Volunteers Bill was passed through the German Parliament in order to enable the creation of the Bundeswehr. The Bill had only 69 words of its original draft left when it came out of committee and was four times longer than when it went in. They wanted to emphasise the parliamentary control of the armed forces. They did better for themselves than we are doing for ourselves with this damned Bill.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend's second speech was even more effective than his first. I am grateful to him for that comment.
These are not secondary matters in any sense. We seek to provide the protections in this case. The Government's answer is that we do not have to worry because there is no possibility of the hazards that we describe ever coming about; we need not have the slightest fear. They say that they would not deal with great matters such as the establishment of a treaty dealing with economic and monetary union without the fullest possibility of Parliament's being able to have its say.
On the defence question, whether or not conscription and other matters are involved, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we need not worry. He talks about meaningful debate and normal procedures, and says that we can

have all the guarantees and assurances that we want. If that is so there is not the slightest reason why he should not accept the Amendments. If he accepted them, what would he have done? In certain cases he would have ensured—not absolutely; but there would be a much greater likelihood—that he would have to bring matters before Parliament and pursue them by Acts of Parliament, by legislation. At any rate he would have deprived himself of the opportunities of doing it under the Bill, under this precise procedure. He could just say "Yes".
I conclude by expressing a difference of view on some of these matters with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. When the right hon. Gentleman reaches the conclusion of his speech he always departs from the pattern that he laid down earlier. He turns to the Solicitor-General and pays a great tribute to the hon. and learned Gentleman's acumen, integrity and brilliance, and then he says that the Solicitor-General has to deal with an awkward problem because the Bill is obscure. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman is faced with an obscurity in the Bill he attributes it to the hon. and learned Gentleman's incapacity to say what he means. Whenever he is confronted with omissions in the Bill he attributes them to the hon. and learned Gentleman's diffidence and bashfulness, and whenever he is confronted with obstacles in the Bill which he thinks are so great that they will impede the whole working of Parliament he thinks that they are matters which have been carelessly inserted by one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's subordinates when he was not looking. That demonstrates the natural generosity of mind of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
I took that view a few weeks ago, but I have become more suspicious. I know that it is almost an unparliamentary expression, and is almost something that should not be allowed to be said, but I believe that the Government mean what they say in the Bill. If you care to name me, Sir Robert, for having said that I will have to take the consequences. If the hon. and learned Gentleman means what he says in the Bill the obscurities are intentional. The omissions have been made on purpose, in order to deprive


future Parliaments of their rights, and the obstacles have been placed there in order to prevent future parliaments doing what past Parliaments have been able to do.
The House must decide who is right—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West or myself—in our estimates of the character of the author of the Bill. There is only one way in which the Government can prove that the right hon. Gentleman is right and that is to accept the Amendments.

The Chairman: Before I put the Question, it may help the Committee if I explain the slightly complicated procedure that we must follow. I understand that the Committee does not want to divide on Amendment No. 148 but would like to divide on Amendments Nos. 149 and 187. But I must put Amendment 148. The proper procedure will be for the Government to negative it and the Opposition to say nothing.

We will then come to the other two Amendments, upon which there can be Divisions. When that is concluded we will have reached Amendment No. 31, which has been debated and on which I promised I would call a Division.

Mr. Foot: That means that there will be three votes on Amendments Nos. 31, 149 and 187? These are the three most important Amendments.

The Chairman: Yes, but not in that order.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 149, in page 2, line 22, after 'agreement', insert
'other than one relating to defence'.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]
Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 170.

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[11.45 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Maclennan, Robert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marten, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Foot, Michael
Meacher, Michael


Baxter, William
Garrett, W. E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John


Biffen, John
Golding, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bishop, E. S.
Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Body, Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Campbell, (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pentland, Norman


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Meriyn (Leeds, S.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Strang, Gavin


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred
McElhone, Frank
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Ewing, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fell, Anthony
Mackie, John
Tomney, Frank




Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Watkins, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Urwin, T. W.
Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert


Wainwright, Edwin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Wallace, George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allason, James (Kemel Hempstead)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pardoe, John


Astor, John
Hastings, Stephen
Parkinson, Cecil


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Hawkins, Paul
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Benyon, W.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pounder, Rafton


Biggs-Davison, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Blaker, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Redmond, Robert


Boscawen, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bryan, Paul
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Churchill, W. S.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cockeram, Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cooke, Robert
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott, Nicholas


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Soref, Harold


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spence, John


Crowder, F. P.
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Curran, Charles
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Loveridge, John
Steel, David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, R. A.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McLaren, Martin
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Fidler, Michael
Madel, David
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mather, Carol
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhart, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Warren, Kenneth


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wiggin, Jerry


Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles
Wilkinson, John


Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar
Woodnutt, Mark


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Grylls, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gummer, Selwyn
Nott, John



Gurden, Harold
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Hamish Gray

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 187, in page 2, line 22, after 'agreement', insert:
'other than one relating to economic or monetary union or defence'.—[Sir D. Walker-Smith.]

Question put, That that Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 168.

Division No. 97.]
AYES
[11.55 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regls)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Biffen, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Baxter, William
Bishop, E. S.




Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Body, Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, Leslie
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pendry, Tom


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carmichael, Neil
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prescott, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Janner, Greville
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rose, Paul B.


Concannon, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spearing, Nigel


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D
McBride, Neil
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tomney, Frank


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin




Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin


Ewing, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wallace, George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael
Miller, Dr. M. S.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward
Whitehead, Phillip


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Golding, John
Moate, Roger
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Murray, Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Hawkins, Paul


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dykes, Hugh
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Astor, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holt, Miss Mary


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hordern, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Benyon, W.
Fidler, Michael
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Biggs-Davison, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Boscawen, Robert
Fortescue, Tim
James David


Bowden, Andrew
Fox, Marcus
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Braine, Bernard
Gibson-Watt, David
Jessel, Toby


Brinton, Sir Tatton




Bryan, Paul
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Goodhart, Philip
Jopling, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gorst, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Churchill, W. S.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Green, Alan
Kirk, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Percy
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clegg, Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Knox, David


Cockeram, Eric
Grylls, Michael
Lane, David


Cooke, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cooper, A. E.
Gurden, Harold
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cormack, Patrick
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Longden, Gilbert


Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Loveridge, John


Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
MacArthur, Ian


Crouch, David
Haselhurst, Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Crowder, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen
McLaren, Martin


Curran, Charles
Havers, Michael
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)







McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maddan, Martin
Pink, R. Bonner
Steel, David


Madel, David
Pounder, Rafton
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Mather, Carol
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Mawby, Ray
Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tebbit, Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Temple, John M.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tilney, John


More, Jasper
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Morrison, Charles
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Murton, Oscar
Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Neave, Airey
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Normanton, Tom
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Nott, John
Scott, Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Onslow, Cranley
Sharples, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Soref, Harold
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Speed, Keith



Pardoe, John
Spence, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parkinson, Cecil
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Percival, Ian
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Hamish Gray.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 2, line 23, at end add
'including declarations and exchanges of letters'.—[Mr. Shore.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 149. Noes, 167.

Division No. 98.]
AYES
[12.5 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marten, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Foot, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Baxter, William
Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Biffen, John
Golding, John
Milne, Edward


Bishop, E. S.
Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Body, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Freo


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pentland, Norman


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Janner, Greville
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Concannon, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. H. Roy (Stechford)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)



Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Judd, Frank
Russell, Sir Ronald


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Delargy, H. J.
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dormond, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Fred
Mackenzie, Gregor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ewing, Harry
Mackie, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Fell, Anthony
Maclennan, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)




Tomney, Frank
Watkins, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Turton, Fit. Hn. Sir Robin
Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert


Urwin, T. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Wainwright, Edwin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Wallace, George






NOES


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pardoe, John


Astor, John
Hastings, Stephen
Parkinson, Cecil


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Hawkins, Paul
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Benyon, W.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pounder, Rafton


Biggs-Davison, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Blaker, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Redmond, Robert


Boscawen, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Braine, Bernard
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bryan, Paul
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Churchill, W. S.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)



Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifte)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rost, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Kinsey, J. R.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Soref, Harold


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spence, John


Crowder, F. P.
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Curran, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Steel, David


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, R. A.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McLaren, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Fidler, Michael
Madel, David
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mather, Carol
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhart, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Warren, Kenneth


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gorst, John
More, Jasper
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles
Wilkinson, John


Green, Alan
Murton, Oscar
Woodnutt, Mark


Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Grylls, Michael
Nott, John



Gummer, Selwyn
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Keith Speed and


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Walter Clegg


Hall, John (Wycombe)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 150, in line 23, at end add:
Provided that the text of any such international agreement, protocol or annex shall have been published.

The Chairman: With this Amendment, it will be convenient for the Committee

to take Amendment No. 179, in line 23, at end add:
'other than one which limits by quota imports from developing countries',
Amendment No. 180, in line 23, at end add:
'other than one relating to the establishment of an economic and monetary union and a common currency'


and Amendment No. 198, in line 23, at end add:
'the English text of which has been laid before each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Davies: I propose to deal only with Amendment No. 150, and I leave it to my hon. Friends to deal with the other Amendments which are to be taken with it.
The object of Amendment No. 150 is to provide that the international agreements, protocols and annexes set out in subsection (4) are published by the Government in an official, formal manner so that the provisions of the agreements can be known and can easily be accessible to those who have to obey them and to various advisers.
It will be noted that the Amendment does not include treaties which are naturally so called, but is confined to the extension of the meaning of treaties, that is to say, to international agreements and so on. On reflection, having heard the discussions on previous Amendments I feel that we should also have included in the Amendment the word "treaties". Should the Government accept the Amendment, I hope they will consider it logical to publish not only international agreements, protocols or annexes, but also treaties.
There are three reasons why we believe these agreements should be published in a formal and official manner. In the first place, it is recognised in this Committee that we are not dealing with a normal kind of treaty made between the United Kingdom and a foreign State. The meaning of the word "treaty" has been extended and now covers a much wider and much vaguer classification of international agreements.
12.15 a.m.
I was unable to be present when the Solicitor-General dealt with these matters earlier, since I was in a Standing Committee upstairs. But I heard his concluding remarks, in which he advanced the argument that an international agreement is an international agreement is an international agreement. I do not criticise the hon. and learned Gentleman for that, because the phrase is very vague. It is vague if one looks at the authorities on international law, and I am sorry that the draftsman has chosen to incorporate such

a vague phrase which is capable of so many interpretations. If, for example, the British Government were to agree with the French Government on the purchase of arms, presumably that would be an international agreement. However, it would not in most people's language be a treaty.
If we look at the Vienna Convention on Treaties which this country signed and ratified on 20th April, 1970, we see that a treaty is defined as "an international agreement". In the Bill, the draftsman has stated his position clearly. For him, a treaty is not an international agreement except by the extension that he has made to it.
We seek publication first because of the vagueness of the phrase "international agreement", and I put forward the proposition that an international agreement can be either a written or an oral agreement. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that an oral agreement should not be an international agreement. Again if we look at the authorities on international law, especially at McNair on the Law of Treaties, the point is made on page 7 that normally one would not consider an oral agreement to be a treaty. He says that there is a considerable body of law to this effect, and he goes on to say that there is no reason why an international agreement, which is a wider classification than "treaty", should not in theory be conducted and concluded orally.
By extending the meaning of treaties to include international agreements, the draftsman has opened up the possibility that an oral agreement could be stated to be an international agreement. For that reason also we think it safer and more prudent to call upon the Executive to publish all these agreements in a clear and official form.
Another form of international declaration which could be an international agreement according to the authorities is a unilateral declaration made in favour of another State which is then acted upon by another State. Normally this would not be considered to be an agreement. But the authorities, especially Article 102 of the United Nations Charter, make it clear that unilateral declarations of this kind can also be designated as international agreements. For this reason, because of the vagueness of the phrase, and because so many different forms of


agreements and declarations could be encompassed in the phrase "international agreement", we feel that it is safer to publish them so that people can understand what they mean.
An even more compelling reason why we seek publication is that the agreements and treaties that we are considering are not merely treaties normally entered into by the Crown in its prerogative capacity. They are not treaties to which the Crown is able to accede and that is the end of the matter. These treaties create law in this country. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has coined the phrase "prerogative legislation". One could call it treaty legislation. But these treaties are different from the normal run of treaties because a large proportion of them affect the rights and obligations of British citizenship. For that reason it is necessary that citizens and their advisers should be able to see these treaties without any difficulty.
The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), in a previous debate, sought to argue that there was no limitation on sovereignty involved in acceding to the Treaty of Rome. He used the phrase "delegation of power" of this Parliament to the Commission. I do not necessarily agree with that description, but I will use it for this purpose. If this is a delegation of power, we can argue, without stretching the point too far, that we are dealing with some special kind of delegated legislation. If we are giving the Commission power to legislate, that legislation, on the analogy of "delegation"—which I do not accept fully—means that we are looking at a kind of delegated legislation. I submit that this delegated legislation should be published officially so that the citizen can find out what his rights are. I will return to that point.
I now turn to the Bill, which I suggest is very weak. Not only is it weak on parliamentary scrutiny, but it is weak on the immensely important subject of the publication of this vast body of law in this country.
Looking at the only Clause which could deal with the matter, Clause 1(3), we find that, whatever else it does, it may provide for publicity by way of debate on affirmative Resolutions, but it

does not provide for the kind of publication which we would normally expect in relation to delegated legislation of a more minor character than the legislation which will emanate from the Commission.
Taking the second part of Clause 1(3) first, I suppose that the Government could argue that that provides some opportunity for the citizen to read and understand what is going on. However, I suggest that the debate on an affirmative Resolution is not sufficient to inform the citizen about the treaties and what obligations and rights he has, because the debate merely deals with general matters.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has several times referred to international agreements. Do I take it that he is dealing with the pile of 2,500 rules, regulations, orders and edicts which we have already seen? Does he classify those as agreements? If so, is he aware that it took us over 12 months to get them? Surely we should have some time limit, because if it took us 12 months to get them there will be no point in getting them published.

Mr. Davies: I should not seek to classify all those instruments as international agreements, because many are directives and regulations which come directly from Brussels. However, a large proportion are international agreements in the sense that they are entered into between the Communities and third party States or member States.
The point which I am making is that there is such a proliferation that a lawyer, businessman or individual citizen should be able to go to particular volumes, like he does with Statutes and Statutory Instruments, to see what the Community law is on these matters.
Clause 1(3) does not provide the kind of publication which we require. All it says is that the Crown shall specify by Order in Council. I understand that "specify" means to name the particular treaty or international obligation. It merely states that an obligation or an agreement entered into on a particular date shall be a Community treaty for the purposes of the Bill. It does not, in the ordinary use of language, mean that the text of the agreement or of the treaty would be set out in that Order in Council.
The second part of Clause 1(3) deals only with United Kingdom agreements. We know that there are agreements entered into by the Comission with third party countries to which the United Kingdom is not a party. Therefore, the second part of Clause 1(3), although it provides for some publicity, is limited, first, because it specifies only the name of the treaty, and, secondly, because even then it deals only with treaties to which the United Kingdom was a party.
The first part of Clause 1(3) provides even less in the way of publicity or scrutiny machinery. It is meaningless, referring only to the situation "if" a treaty is designated by Order in Council. But these treaties are self-executing. Once the Commission issues them, they become part of our law, and the Order in Council procedure is not necessary.
The Bill provides few safeguards. Clause 3 refers to the Official Journal of the Communities. I am not sure what it is, but it must deal with a vast range of matters affecting this country and others. It is asking a lot of the citizen and his adviser to wade through that journal to find out his rights and obligations.
Apart from the Bill, we are left with the existing procedures, and there is no formal publication of treaties in this country. There is the treaty series, but it has no official recognition. Again, the Ponsonby Rules are not designed to provide a comprehensive guide to this sort of legislation. Because these treaties are delegated legislation, the Government should consider the Statutory Instruments Act, which provides for the publication of Statutory Instruments.
The Amendment is not moved out of hostility to the E.E.C. If we do join, we must try to make the thing work, because otherwise the frustrations would be enormous The Amendment tries to remove one source of frustration and enable this vast body of law to be clearly seen by the citizen.

Mr. Body: The argument of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) seems persuasive. We are bound by the Vienna Convention as it relates to treaties, and it regards a treaty as a treaty only if it is in writing. Yet, by the definition of "a treaty" which the

Bill seeks to establish, oral international agreements will be treated as treaties. This is clear from our discussions.
It is painfully clear that such agreements may give rise to endless misunderstandings, and it therefore seems sensible that the Amendment should be accepted, for it would require any oral international agreement to be published, and only then, having been reduced to writing, could it come within the scope of Clause 1.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of Press reports to the effect that when our motor insurance rates are harmonised with those of the Six the cheapest policy for the smallest car will be about £100 and that millions of motorists in Britain will have their policies doubled, trebled and even quadrupled, whether or not they wish to drive on the Continent? Once this information becomes more widely known, there will be one hell of a scream from our motorists.

Mr. Body: Many people outside the House will be thankful to the hon. Gentleman for publicising that point. I understand that that is not yet a regulation but a draft directive. Obviously, our insurance rates will have to be harmonised—[Hon. Members: "Why?"]—and will cost more. I could spend all night examining the various aspects of harmonisation, but I gather that the usual channels have arranged for this to be a short debate.
Suffice to say that the fear of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is well founded. As the point he raised and others become better known, public opinion will harden still more against the Bill and the venture that is being sought by a minority in this country and by almost a minority in the House of Commons.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to accept that a point of substance resides in what has been said about international agreements. We should know exactly the extent to which we shall be bound by any such agreement, and the only way to ensure that is to have all agreements published, which is what the Amendment seeks to have done. For this reason it should be accepted.

Mr. Jay: I assume that the Government will accept Amendment No. 150,


because I can hardly believe that, in addition to all the other absurdities and enormities of the Bill, they are proposing to make legal, with nothing more than an affirmative Order, treaties which have not been published for the benefit of the House and the country.
Therefore, since that seems to be self-evident, and since the hour is fairly late, I shall briefly say something about Amendments Nos. 179 and 180, which we are taking with Amendment No. 150. It is a pity that two subjects of such great importance have to be discussed in quite such a cramped and confined manner, and therefore I assume that we shall have to return to these vital subjects in later debates.
By Amendment No. 179 we seek to exclude from treaties affected by the Bill treaties which, by quota, would limit imports from developing countries. Anyone who believes that we have an obligation to the developing countries, and particularly to the developing Commonwealth countries, will, I am sure, regret that the much more illiberal import policies of the E.E.C. are to be inflicted upon this country.
There is no doubt that in this matter of import quotas the E.E.C. practices are far more restrictionist and illiberal than our own. At this hour of the night I shall give only two examples of that. The first, and most obvious, is textile manufactures. This country imports about 40 per cent.—if not 50 per cent.—of its textile manufactures, and very largely from the Commonwealth Asian countries. The E.E.C. imports rather less than 10 per cent.—in the case of France not more than 5 per cent.—of its textile consumption. It would strike a grievous blow at countries such as India, Pakistan, Hong Kong and Malaysia, particularly in Asia, if we were to adopt the extremely restrictionist policies of the E.E.C. in this respect.
The other example is the programme of generalised preferences which, after more than six years of debate in U.N.C.T.A.D. and elsewhere, have finally been adopted by the United States, the United Kingdom and the E.E.C. countries. The tragic fact here is that the generalised preference scheme which the United Kingdom has adopted would also be far more liberal than the programme which the E.E.C. is proposing. The

E.E.C. system of generalised preferences looks very nice on the surface—like quite a number of E.E.C. practices—but when one inquires into them more thoroughly one discovers that the tariff reductions made in the interests of the developing countries apply only up to a certain quota limit, which is usually not much higher than the level of imports which the E.E.C. countries have been talking.
If we were to adopt the E.E.C. generalised preference scheme—and we have not so far been told that we are not to do so—it would be another grievous blow to the developing countries. Not merely would it be a blow to them, but it would be a curious irony that the Prime Minister, who always boasts of having launched the generalised preference scheme at Geneva in 1963, should now be the agent who is practically nullifying its effects.

Mr. Deakins: Is not the position worse than that about the E.E.C. attitude to the generalised preference scheme; namely, that the quotas which it has fixed under the generalised preference scheme have a base year of 1968, with a 5 per cent. increase a year thereafter, and yet since 1968 imports from the developing countries have been going up at the rate of 15 per cent. a year? Therefore, progressively under the E.E.C. quota scheme the developing countries will be worse off year by year, and we shall be bound by this system.

Mr. Jay: I believe that my hon. Friend's details are correct. He has put in rather longer detail the brief summary I gave when I said that owing to the choice of the base year these quotas would have an extremely restrictionist effect.
The main consequence for the developing countries of Britain entering the E.E.C. on the terms now proposed would be even more serious than that. The dominant effect is seldom mentioned in our discussions. The dominant effect would be that if we incur as a result of the whole range of consequences, which I shall not detail tonight, the enormous extra balance of payments deficit which we all know that entering the E.E.C. is bound to inflict upon us, that will seriously curtail our ability to give aid to any developing countries, in the


Commonwealth or outside it. If one takes the fact—the most important single fact—of the effect I have described in the case of textiles and generalised preferences, there is no doubt that if some safeguard such as these Amendments is not adopted the effect on developing countries could be very serious indeed.
The second Amendment, Amendment No. 180, returns to the subject of monetary and currency union, which has already been touched on, somewhat illogically, perhaps, in an earlier debate this evening. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has quite rightly pointed out that it is impossible to have monetary and currency union without political unification over a very large range of vital policy. But what has not been said today and what should now be said, however briefly, is that a policy of monetary union with the other countries of Western Europe is really a policy of economic lunacy for this country. It is flying in the face of all the economic experience of the last 15 years. If there is one lesson that we should have learned over the last 20 years it is that we can have growth and full employment without balance-of-payments crises only if we have a more flexible exchange rate policy. I shall not tonight explain—though I should love to do so—just what that more flexible exchange rate policy should be, but there is no serious question in the mind of anyone who has studied and understands this problem that it must be more flexible than the policies we have followed in the past.
But the E.E.C., so far from learning all these lessons, is now moving in exactly the opposite direction. Only this week the E.E.C., which failed to agree on any extension of its so-called regional development funds, agreed with alacrity on a further narrowing of the exchange rate limits permitted between E.E.C. currencies. Therefore, if no safeguard of this kind is introduced, what we are facing, on top of all the political, constitutional damage that we have been discussing, is a policy which would, first, inflict an immense balance of payments burden on this country, and then prevent us moving our exchange rate as the only way out of that difficulty. That is the policy with which we are faced.
I have just come across a remarkable illustration of that. A book has been published entitled "The Economics of Europe", by which is meant the economics of the Common Market, thereby evidencing at once the illiteracy of some of the authors or at least the editor of the book. In the book, the one economist in this country who has advocated our entering the Common Market—though I believe he has said that he is doing it for political and not economic reasons—explains that he has to admit that our doing so now would inflict a huge balance of payment burden on this country; but he says that that does not matter very much because we should then be able to devalue. But we learned only this week from the E.E.C. that we shall not be allowed to devalue because the policy of fixed exchange rates is being introduced.
Most hon. Members can see where all this is leading. To put it briefly and bluntly, under the control of the ignorant, arrogant economic dogmatists and illiterates like the Prime Minister, who are marching like sleepwalkers along this path, we are being presented with a recipe for economic disaster and for the ultimate economic weakening of this country.
One of the agencies which will bring this damage most rapidly upon us is the new fashionable idea of monetary and currency union. I need say no more tonight, although a lot will be said later. I support the Amendments.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVING in the Chair]

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Rippon: Perhaps I should deal first with Amendment No. 150 moved by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies), which covers much the same ground as Amendment No. 198. In answer to his case, the pre-accession treaties have been published already. Future United Kingdom treaties will be published when affirmative Resolutions are sought under the Clause 1(3) Order in Council, and Parliament will have an opportunity to consider them. Any treaties concluded by the Community in its own right will be published in English in the Official Journal.
Earlier today my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General covered the


question of what constitutes a treaty, and he also dealt with the provisions in the United Nations charter in Article 102 which requires publication of treaties. I suggest that the main object of both Amendments is, therefore, achieved and that the statutory provision is unnecessary, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendments will be withdrawn.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) spoke to two Amendments in very clear and concise terms and repeated his economic ideas which he thinks are shared by every other genuine economist in the country. Everyone understands the concern which is expressed about the effect of the enlargement of the Communities upon the trade with developing countries. We have debated this matter on numerous occasions and no doubt we shall debate it again. It is a wide subject, and we cannot cover it in a debate like this late at night.
In my experience the European Communities are as well aware as we are of the need to facilitate exports from the developing countries. This is the whole purpose of the arrangements that we have negotiated for the offer of association agreements of one sort or another and trading agreements. It is only fair to the Community to point out that it was the first to introduce the generalised preference scheme and we have followed. The developing countries themselves do not regard it as a blow. To take one example, Mauritius has hastened to take advantage of the Community's offer of association and has asked successfully for that process to be expedited so that it can join the present agreement. But the Community, like ourselves, exercises restraints under the G.A.T.T. long-term arrangements for cotton textiles. This is another matter which we have debated and about which we know the difficulties. So I do not think we could reasonably or realistically undertake in a Bill of this kind that all restrictions will be eliminated.
The right hon. Gentleman then turned to the question of economic and monetary union, which was dealt with also by his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on the last Amendment. There are a few illusions here which ought to be cleared out of the way. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked

about developments which were never contemplated before. The right hon. Gentleman talked of economic and monetary union being recommended only by economic illiterates. I think it right that the Committee should recall some of the views which have been expressed over the years by representatives of both Governments, Labour and Conservative.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have noted that in an article in, Le Monde in September, 1967, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), then the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
On the financial front, an enlarged Community would be able to follow lines of action which…could at the end of the day lead, for example, to the creation of a common European currency in which all our currencies, including sterling, would be subsumed. We in the United Kingdom are certainly ready to bring our contribution to the closest possible European co-operation in these questions, which can only be for the good of all our peoples.
That was the view of Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer, given as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think, in fact, that he went a little further in that statement on the movement to a common currency than many people would believe immediately realistic.
But the goal has been accepted by a great many people. [Interruption.] It is the goal of the Leader of the Opposition. Quotation has been made of what I said in my speech to the Press Club last week about the goal of economic and monetary union being one which is shared by the United Kingdom Government. Not only is it shared by the Conservative Government; it was shared by the Labour Government. The Leader of the Opposition was quite specific about it. Speaking on the 1970 White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman, then Prime Minister, said:
I was interested to see that in the recent talks in Brussels and since there is a very deep interest in Europe…in closer European co-operation in monetary matters. We have always made it clear that we are prepared to go along with the best of them on this question and shall be prepared to do so and to negotiate, if that is an issue in the negotiations, or afterwards if that is an issue afterwards."—[Official Report, 10th February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 1089.]
Thus, we have all been perfectly clear about our pursuit of this goal. [Interruption.] I am answering the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that


when we talk about economic and monetary union we are talking about developments which were never contemplated. In fact, they were contemplated. That is quite clear, although, of course, we can have our differences of opinion about what ought to be done.
One then has to examine how Parliament will consider what is suggested.

Mr. Jay: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman can distinguish between co-operation in these matters, which might mean co-operation to introduce a flexible exchange rate system, and currency union.

Mr. Rippon: Of course. There are distinctions. I put at the far end of the scale the common currency, and the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East when he was the Labour Government's Chancellor of the Exchequer. I explained what the Leader of the Opposition said. The Prime Minister has been quoted on the matter. I have been quoted. There are now enough quotations on record to show that we all knew that developments were contemplated. Yet the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that he did not know of any developments being contemplated.
As I said, the United Kingdom looks forward to co-operating in the development of economic and monetary union as a member of the enlarged Community. But, here again, major constitutional developments in this field will almost certainly require a treaty which would have to come before Parliament. [Hon. Members: "Almost?".] It depends a great deal on the nature of the arrangement that is made. Under our present constitutional procedures there are certain matters which are required to be expressed in a treaty. There are other agreements, such as the agreement made on a short-term basis after the American proposals of 12th August, which have been debated by the House in the ordinary way and there has been no question of a treaty required. There is a great difference between arrangements made short term

and moving towards a common currency and a complete monetary union. That is why I say the distinction must be made between the major constitutional developments and ordinary international monetary agreements, which are being made all the time and are not coming before Parliament in the form of a treaty but are simply debated and discussed.

The common approach which has been referred to, which the Community finance Ministers reached last week, of course, remains subject to endorsement. Here again, under the interim arrangements which we have settled in the negotiations the Government are being consulted, but those discussions represent only a start. They do not, for example, imply a common currency reached straight away, nor the removal of the power of each country to adjust its exchange rate. Those concerned have been talking simply about margins of fluctuations. These are wide issues which we shall have to discuss in the House for many years, and in or out of the Community we already have procedures for discussing them. I hope the Amendments will not be accepted.

Mr. Michael Foot: We on this side regard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply as totally unsatisfactory. He has not dealt with the major issues raised in the debate. Although it has been a short debate, the issues raised are extremely important, and we must seek the further opportunities available for dealing with them. In the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we shall discuss many of these matters. That part of the discussion is bound to be imprecise in some respects, but we shall certainly seek to return to these maters in future debates.
I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendments now to express our displeasure with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, but we intend to press all these matters again at every opportunity available to us under the Bill.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 149.

Division No. 99.]
AYES
[12.58 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Body, Richard


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Biffen, John
Booth, Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Atkinson, Norman
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Buchan, Norman




Butter, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br c'n&amp;R' dnor)


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roper, John


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sandelson, Neville


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spearing, Nigel


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson



Doig, Peter
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dormand, J. D.
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
Mackie, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin


Ewing, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Meacher, Michael
Wallace, George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Foot, Michael
Milne, Edward
Whitehead, Phillip


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oswald, Thomas





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Madel, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol


Benyon, W.
Grylis, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bowden, Andrew
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Braine, Bernard
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bryan, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
More, Jasper


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus.N&amp;M)
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Havers, Michael
Morrison, Charles


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Neave, Airey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Normanton, Tom


Clegg, Walter
Holt, Miss Mary
Nott, John


Cockeram, Eric
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Cooke, Robert
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Critchley, Julian
James, David
Parkinson, Cecil


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival, Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Jessel, Toby
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kershaw, Anthony
Redmond, Robert


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kinsey, J. R.



Fidler, Michael
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knox, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fox, Marcus
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert
Rost, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Loveridge, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gorst, John
McCrindle, R. A.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.







Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sharples, Richard
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Temple, John M.
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Soref, Harold
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Spence, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Sproat, Iain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Stainton, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren Kenneth
Mr. Keith Speed and


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Reginald Eyre


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 180, in page 2, line 23, at end add:
'other than one relating to the establishment of an economic and monetary union and a common currency'.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]

Division No. 100.]
AYES
[1.7 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Murray, Ronald King


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oswald, Thomas


Biffen, John
Hamilng, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurie


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Body, Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Pentland, Norman


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Roper, John


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Rose, Paul B.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kerr, Russell
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Delargy, H. J.
McElhone, Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Mackenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Mackie, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wallace, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David


Dunnett, Jack
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, pollok)


English, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Evans, Fred
Mendelson, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ewing, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woof, Robert


Fell, Anthony
Milne, Edward



Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Moate, Roger
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bryan, Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Humphrey
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Critchley, Julian


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, Mark
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Churchill, W. S.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James


Blaker, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Boscawen, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bowden, Andrew
Cockeram, Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cooke, Robert
Eyre, Reginald

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 149.

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kirk, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fidler, Michael
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Flelcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fortescue, Tim
Langford-Holt, Sir John



Fox, Marcus
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gibson-Watt, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald


Goodhart, Philip
Loveridge, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gorst, John
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Scott, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Gray, Hamish
Maddan, Martin
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Green, Alan
Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol
Soref, Harold


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray
Spence, John


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sproat, Iain


Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Haselhurst, Alan
More, Jasper
Temple, John M.


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Havers, Michael
Morrison, Charles
Tilney, John


Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Neave, Airey
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Normanton, Tom
Ward, Dame Irene


Holt, Miss Mary
Nott, John
Warren, Kenneth


Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilkinson, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


James, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Worsley, Marcus


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival, Ian
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Jessel, Toby
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kershaw, Anthony
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Keith Speed and


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover)

Question accordingly negatived.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Orders of the Day — CHILD'S DEATH (WOLVERHAMPTON)

1.19 a.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I close the proceedings of Parliament today, having very much earlier in our proceedings had the pleasure of moving a Ten-minute Rule Bill.
I wish to take this opportunity of raising the matter of the death of a three-month-old child, Ravinder Singh Dhadral, who died at home just after Christmas. This was the child of a family who

suffered a similar death some time ago when a four-month-old baby girl died of pneumonia, as did the baby whose case I am drawing to the attention of the House. The baby died 12 hours after being turned away from the Royal Hospital, Wolverhampton.
These sad events began on 22nd December when the father called the local doctor to see the baby, who was ill. The doctor gave the child penicillin and made out a prescription, but the baby's condition worsened and the family became very concerned about its condition. On the evening of Christmas Day, which was a Saturday, the locum was again called. He gave more medicine to the baby and made out another prescription.
During Sunday, the father searched in vain for a chemist's shop that was open. I am not criticising the arrangements made for notifying the public about the chemists' rota. I am satisfied that all chemists in Wolverhampton display the rota on their doors. Obviously the father did not know this. Nor did he get in touch with the police, who could have told him where to take the prescription.
Unable to find a chemist's shop open, the father took his wife and the baby to the casualty department at the Royal Hospital. Whoever was on duty there refused to call a doctor. As the hospital pharmacy was closed, he could not have the prescription dispensed, and the father said:
They gave me two telephone numbers which I rang from the casualty department, but I got no answer. While waiting for a taxi my wife was in tears, and she showed the baby to the receptionist, but she was just ignored. We stayed up nursing Ravinder until 4 a.m."—
that would be the Monday morning—
but when we woke he was dead.
At the inquest on the baby, which was not held until 9th February, the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem reported that the prescription given by the locum would not have had much effect because what was needed was an antibiotic because of the baby's condition. The medicine prescribed was not an antibiotic. I am not dealing with that matter. I am not raising the question of the doctor who prescribed medicine which was useless in this case. But, as it turned out, it reinforced the need for the child to be seen by a doctor when taken to hospital and to be admitted to the hospital. If similar medicine was prescribed before the visit to the hospital, it is not surprising that the child's condition deteriorated.
According to the report of the inquest, in The Times, there was a sister in charge of the casualty department at the time, but her evidence indicates that the parents were anxious only about having the prescription dispensed and that neither parent asked to see a doctor. The father has maintained all along that he asked both for the prescription to be dispensed and for a doctor to see the child. The sister's evidence was not corroborated by the receptionist on duty at the time, who admitted at the inquest that the father in fact asked to see a doctor.
I have already taken up with the Minister the question of casualty cover at this hospital. I wrote to him last October after a constituent of mine complained that his wife was kept waiting a very long time in the out-patients' department. The answer from the Minister then was that doctors had been arriving late on duty, and this had resulted in patients

being kept waiting a long time in the outpatients' department. The Minister said at that time that senior nursing staff were on duty in the casualty department—presumably at all times—and if patients arrived needing urgent medical attention they could call medical staff from other parts of the hospital. One immediately wants to know why it was not done in the case of this baby. That is the first of several serious questions which need answering. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the answers.
What senior nursing staff were on duty, and why was the sick child ignored, when it is common knowledge that a child's condition can deteriorate very rapidly? On whose judgment was the decision made not to call a doctor, and what were that person's qualifications which enabled her to take on the responsibility of not doing so? What steps have been taken since to ensure, at any rate, a reliable medical cover to the casualty department at all times, and to ensure that no one but a qualified medical person decides whether a patient should be admitted? What steps have been taken to remedy the obvious lack of communication between the casualty department and the chemists in the town? Does the hospital now have the chemists' rota available at all times, and would not it have been more appropriate for the hospital receptionist in those circumstances to have telephoned the chemist who was open, because this was an emergency?
This tragic case raises the whole question of emergency treatment in our hospitals. Many people have to turn to a hospital for emergency help, as this family did. In these days it is not possible to be absolutely certain that one's family doctor will turn out in an emergency, or that a partner will be available. Many people who travel away from home regularly—drivers, business representatives, actors, musicians, dancers, and even Members of Parliament—might be taken ill, and be unable to get a doctor. They would then obviously turn to the local hospital for help. Indeed, where else should they go? The Minister must satisfy himself that there is adequate casualty cover at every hospital in the country to decide whether sick persons should be admitted.
One cannot say that this baby would not have died, even in hospital; but one


can say that what chances he had were diminished because he was not admitted. That is why this is such a serious matter.
In my view, this case merits the fullest investigation in order to allay public concern. The hospital has been silent in the face of a great deal of publicity both in the national and local Press, and there is a good deal of criticism and unease about the whole affair. An impartial, thorough inquiry is the only satisfactory way of dealing with this case. Indeed, it provides a powerful argument in favour of a hospital ombudsman, and is exactly the kind of case which he should investigate.
Internal investigations by hospital management committees and regional hospital boards, where the hospital authority acts as judge and jury in its own cause, are becoming more and more debased. In the public interest, there must be some better method of investigating complaints, whether from patients, their relatives, or, indeed, from members of hospital staffs.
Whatever we do now cannot help these unhappy parents who lost their little boy, but we can and must make sure that such a thing never happens again.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell(Wolverhampton, South-West): As the parents of this child resided, and as the hospital is situated, in my constituency, I have naturally applied my mind as best I can to the circumstances of the case.
I should like to put on record my conclusion that there is no ground for complaint against the services provided by the local executive council—in that I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short)—or against the hospital.
I say that about the hospital because the parents of the child arrived with the problem of finding a means of dispensing a prescription which had been made out for the patient by his family doctor, or by a locum of the family doctor. Therefore, there was no function for the hospital to perform and there was no reason why the hospital should secure a medical examination of the child, that not being in any case the purpose of the visit of the parents.
It is indeed unfortunate that the parents were unable, though the means existed

for doing so, to locate a chemist who could have dispensed the prescription. That, in my view, does not alter the fact that blame does not rest upon the hospital authority any more than on the local executive council and those in contract with them.

1.29 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): First, I should like to express sympathy with the parents of the child, Ravinder Singh Dhadral, whose death occurred in such sad circumstances last Christmas.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) have found a brief opportunity to bring the case to the attention of the House. I had already promised to write to the hon. Lady following the inquest. I am sorry that I have not been able to do so before the Adjournment debate which she secured this evening.
I am aware that the hon. Lady has been concerned for some time about the medical staffing of the accident and emergency department at the Royal Hospital, Wolverhampton.
In the past year this department has had to work at times under considerable difficulties, in common with accident and emergency departments elsewhere, and in a recent letter to the hon. Member I set out the steps which are being taken on a national basis to improve the situation. We must improve the career opportunities and the scope for well-supervised training in these departments, and the establishment of about 30 new consultant posts will be a useful step forward and will help us to study the best pattern of staffing in these departments.
In the case of our particular concern tonight, however, shortage of medical staff was not a direct factor; there were at the time no vacancies on the medical staff establishment of the department, and a senior house officer was on duty when the child was brought into the accident and emergency department.
Before referring to the case in detail, I should make it clear that as the matter was inquired into by the coroner—this


relates to the hon. Lady's complaint—the hospital authority has decided that a further inquiry would serve no useful purpose. The details of the case as I shall relate them are, therefore, derived from the statements made at the inquest.
To get the record straight from all angles, I should first like to mention the events as related at the inquest which led to the child being brought to the accident and emergency department at the Royal Hospital. On 21st December, the baby, who then was about three months old, had a severe cold and cough, and early in the morning of 22nd December his father, Mr. Dadral, telephoned his doctor; the locum doctor who attended gave a prescription for the child which was dispensed by a chemist later that day.
As, despite the medicine, the child's condition did not improve, the father again called the doctor on Christmas Day; the locum doctor who had previously attended called about 6.30 in the evening, left a small supply of medicine and gave another prescription. After trying unsuccessfully to have this prescription dispensed on the afternoon of Sunday, 26th December, the father telephoned the locum doctor and was told by the person who answered the telephone that some chemist would have been open and that he would have to wait until the next morning. As he thought that the baby's condition had worsened, the father telephoned for a taxi, and the parents took the baby to the Royal Hospital, arriving there about 9.15 in the evening.
The story of what happened after that was told at the inquest by the various persons concerned—the father, the receptionist, the night superintendent and the doctor. Inevitably, each of these remembered certain happenings more clearly than others, and this was reflected in the statements they made. The hon. Member will not expect me to indulge in a comparative assessment of the variations in the evidence which are inevitable when events are seen from different angles. In relating what I understand to have occurred, I have endeavoured to extract the general picture. I do not think that the difference of emphasis in the statements made affects the general picture.
The father first approached the receptionist and asked her whether the hos-

pital could give him the medicine which had been prescribed. The night superintendent on duty looked at the prescription and told the father that the hospital pharmacy was closed. She also looked at the child, who was then asleep, and saw that he was not cyanosed or distressed but was breathing quietly. The night superintendent then gave the father the names and addresses of two chemists who lived on their shop premises and who she thought would dispense the prescription for him; she then left the department to attend to duties elsewhere.
Mr. Dadral tried to contact one of the chemists by telephone but was unsuccessful. He then telephoned for a taxi, and, while waiting for it to arrive, asked the receptionist whether a doctor would see the baby. The receptionist approached the doctor on duty, who suggested that the father should contact his own doctor again if he was unable to get the prescription dispensed by one of the chemists whose addresses he had been given. The taxi then arrived and the parents left the hospital with the baby.
Having passed on the doctor's advice to the father, the receptionist thought that when the parents left the department with the child they proposed to go in the taxi to one of the chemists whose addresses had been given and that if they were unsuccessful in having it dispensed they would go home and call their doctor again.
In fact, the parents took the child home, and, although the father then went to the road where his own doctor lived, he was unable to find his house and returned home without contacting him. The next morning, as the child appeared to be dead, the father called an ambulance and at the Royal Hospital was told that the child was dead.
One of the questions which has been asked is why a hospital doctor did not see the child. The standing rules for the accident and emergency department at the Royal Hospital made it clear that patients who are not accidents or emergencies should nevertheless be seen by the doctor on duty before being referred to their own doctor. In this case there was a misunderstanding on the part of the receptionist as to when the prescription had been issued. As a result, she informed the hospital doctor that the prescription had been given earlier


that same evening and that the doctor who gave it had been content that it should be dispensed the following morning.
The hospital doctor knew that the parents' first concern had been to obtain the medicine which had been prescribed. He accordingly acted in the belief that the child had been seen recently by a doctor and was not in need of urgent medical attention.
I know that some doubts have been raised about the adequacy of the pharmaceutical services inWolverhampton over the Christmas period, but I do not consider them to be justified by the facts. I am glad that the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend acquitted the services of any shortcomings in this respect.
Under the executive council's hours of service scheme, prepared under Regulation 25(1) of the General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services Regulations, 1966, chemists may be required to participate in a rota under which one or more pharmacists open for an additional hour in the evenings, on weekdays and for an hour on Sundays and public holidays.
Under paragraph 4(2) of the chemists terms of service—Part I of Schedule 4 of the regulations of 1966 to which I have referred—notices giving such details are required to be exhibited in all pharmacies. Provision for a rota service was made by the Wolverhampton executive council, and notices were properly exhibited at the relevant times.
Over the three-day Christmas holiday four pharmacies were open from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. and two chemists from 6p.m. to 7 p.m. on each day. Executive councils also reinforce these provisions by voluntary arrangements with chemists, and in Wolverhampton there were five pharmacists who were prepared, if available, to dispense at any time prescriptions marked "urgent" by the doctor, and their names were supplied by the executive council to the local police.
These arrangements are additional to the fundamental safeguard embodied in paragraph 7(9)(a) of the doctors' terms of service, Part I of Schedule I to the regulations, that theirs is the responsibility

for supplying patients with drugs before a supply can be otherwise obtained from a pharmacy.
I understand that the doctor who attended the child at 6.30 p.m. on Christmas Day left, as I have already mentioned, a small supply of medicine at the same time as issuing the prescription, which was not marked "urgent". There should have been at least two and probably three opportunities for getting the prescription dispensed by one of the six rota pharmacists, providing what I regard as a reasonable pharmaceutical service over the Christmas holiday period.
The question has also been raised whether the hospital staff should have ensured that the father was able to get the prescription dispensed. This would not normally be necessary, nor expected of hospital staff, although, subject to the pressure of normal duties, a helpful receptionist might take such action in the case of an "urgent" prescription.
Bearing in mind that this prescription did not carry an "urgent" endorsement and the receptionist might have been in some doubt whether this was a real emergency, her advice to the father to call the doctor again if he could not get the prescription dispensed was in the circumstances reasonable.
I do not think the hon. Lady will expect me to comment on matters of clinical judgment, nor would it be appropriate for me to suggest how the life of this child might have been saved. However, it is clear that there were misunderstandings and delays and that, despite the availability of facilities for the dispensing of prescriptions and for medical attention, tragically the baby did not receive the treatment he needed. This is a tragic case, and I am sure that all who have followed it must feel deep sympathy for the parents.
As the hon. Lady knows, the inquest verdict was death by natural causes, but that covers up what is a real and, I believe, in this case, avoidable tragedy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Two o'clock